Preamble

The House met at half-past. Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1999–2000

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House the accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1999–2000, showing:—

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 2000.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. —[Mr. Clelland.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Missile Defence

Mr. Paul Flynn: What recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on national missile defence. [143711]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We have continued to discuss regularly the proposed United States national missile defence system with the current US Government, and expect to do so with the new US Administration.

Mr. Flynn: Was not star wars the most expensive and most abject military failure ever? Will not son of star wars violate international treaties and wreck the present stability between east and west on nuclear matters? How could any British Government agree to support a scheme that would try to defend the United States by increasing the risk to Great Britain? Britain's role in any star wars nuclear exchange would be to offer up our country as a disposable target. Would not it be more appropriate to rename son of star wars and call it son of failure, especially as it is supported by the Tory party, which is the party of failure?

Mr. Hoon: I say the same to my hon. Friend as I shall no doubt say to Opposition Members in due course. The Government have not yet reached a decision on this matter, nor should we do so, because the Americans have not reached a decision. Given that there will be a new United States Administration, it hardly seems sensible to commit ourselves to a system that the Americans may or may not commit themselves to.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is naive to give uncritical support to a unilateral proposal on national missile defence without taking account of Russian anxiety, the risk to further cuts in strategic nuclear weapons and the potential for a nuclear arms race in Asia led by China and followed by India and Pakistan? Does he further agree that the advent of a new Administration in the White House gives the opportunity for fresh thinking to take account of the nuclear realities of the 21st century, to continue progress towards further cuts in strategic arms holdings, and to provide, if it is viable, protection for all who subscribe to a new regime, including Russia


and China? In particular, could not the United States kick-start such a proposal by signing the comprehensive test ban treaty?

Mr. Hoon: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition shows a lack of judgment when he blunders about pronouncing on this issue even before the United States has reached a conclusion. That applies equally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's further observations. It is necessary to consider carefully any proposal as and when it arrives so as properly to protect the best interests of the United Kingdom, and not to reach a conclusion at this stage, whatever it might be.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I have previously raised with my right hon. Friend the concerns of the communities of the North York moors, including my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Is my right hon. Friend happy to confirm what he has previously told me, that the British people and this place would know first about any proposals on such a defence system, and that the immediate communities around RAF Fylingdales would be included in the process of understanding those proposals? We should be careful to note that, if there is to be a 21st-century bandwagon, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is the wrong test pilot to drive that bandwagon forward.

Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that, whenever the United States reaches a decision on what type of national missile defence it proposes to develop, it is important for such a system to be carefully considered in the United Kingdom and among our allies. That was one of the reasons why President Clinton decided to defer the proposal to the new Administration who are about to take office. It is obvious that there should be a debate in the United Kingdom, specifically among the people in and around Fylingdales.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not it noteworthy that supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who included many Labour Members, were vociferous in their criticism of the deployment of cruise missiles in this country because, according to them, it would thereby become more vulnerable? Those same people are now complaining that Fylingdales may be modernised as part of the US's national ballistic missile system, which will make this country less vulnerable. Is it not clear that the Labour party has little interest in national defence?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I have always felt that his views were redolent of a different era—or out of date, to use more everyday language. Associating the new Labour party and the Government with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which I have never been a member, shows some desperation in his political questioning. I assure him that the Government will take any decision on national missile defence in the best interests of the British people. That will be the sole criterion.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the truth that long-range traceable-source missile systems are

effectively obsolete in the real world, and that the real threat comes from the container going through the port? Is it not also true that the Tories are divided on the issue and are trying to hide that division, which will surface over the next couple of months? [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are divided.

Mr. Hoon: There are a great many real threats in the world. My hon. Friend has mentioned two. It is obviously important for nations to defend themselves against those threats, and the Government have always made it clear that we well understand why the United States might seek to defend itself against nuclear proliferation by deploying a national missile defence system. We have always made plain our understanding of the Americans' real concern in that respect, and we have great sympathy for them.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Ministry of Defence agree that there is a growing threat to the United Kingdom and its allies from rogue states around the world, armed with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction? Does the Ministry think that something should be done about that?

Mr. Hoon: The Government have made it clear that, in the light of a series of careful reviews of the United Kingdom's security, we apprehend no immediate threat to the UK from so-called rogue states or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously we pay careful regard to the matter, but it is under equally careful consideration in the United States.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, very recently, President-elect Bush said:
It's a sensitive subject for leaders of different countries around the world … requires a lot of discussion and a lot of give and take and a lot of listening.
I suggest that the shadow Defence Secretary should do a bit of listening, and give the matter a bit of careful thought. His advice to his own leader might then be a little more thoughtful.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is interesting that the Secretary of State chose not to answer the question directly. He evaded it by talking about immediate threats. He knows that the Ministry of Defence is advising him that there is a growing threat. Does that not explain why he and his colleagues have been going to Washington in the past year and a half, and informing the outgoing Administration privately that they would be willing to let them upgrade Fylingdales, provided that they did not ask the question before the next election?
If that is the Ministry's private view, why did the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), say in March last year:
I don't like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited?
Is that not really the public face of the Government's position, although privately they are pretending otherwise?

Mr. Hoon: All members of the Government have consistently set out our position on national missile defence proposals. The reality is that, in the circumstances, it is best for the British people and best


for the country that we respond to a decision by the United States, rather than seeking to anticipate that decision.
As for an assessment of the strategic threat, the hon. Gentleman has had the same opportunity as every other Member to read the relevant documents. They are published, and they set out clearly the Ministry's view that there is no immediate threat to the country's security from nuclear proliferation.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition were trying to associate new Labour with CND. Is not the Minister of State whom I quoted earlier still a member of CND? Is not the reality that his public position is now the Government's public face? Scared of denying the United States for fear of losing influence in Washington, they are at the same time scared of telling their own Back Benchers, as well as the French and some of their European counterparts, who are opposed to it, that they are going to do something about it.
Does that not leave us with a Government who increasingly resemble Dr. Dolittle's pushmi-pullyu, hoping that something will turn up before the election?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will believe what he wants to believe. He will decide what the view of members of the Government should be on the issue in line with his own prejudices. We have seen a good deal of that from him in relation to matters European. I suspect that this is another example of his anti-European attitudes: he is trying to demonstrate that, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, there would be an application for Britain to become the 51st member of the United States.
The reality is that we must deal with the situation as it is. The present and future United States Administration will think carefully before they decide whether to go ahead with national missile defence. President-elect Bush described it as a sensitive subject. It is a matter for regret that the Opposition do not treat it with the same sensitivity.

RAF Procurement

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143712]

Mr. David Borrow: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143713]

Mr. Mark Hendrick: How many new aircraft his Department plans to procure for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [143718]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Including aircraft on order, we currently plan to acquire 232 Eurofighter multi-role aircraft; 25 A400M transport aircraft; 25 C130J transport aircraft; 21 Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; eight Chinook mark III support helicopters; 22 Merlin mark III support helicopters; and five modified Global Express jets to carry airborne stand-off radar. We will also lease four C17 transport aircraft.
In addition, there are several projects where the exact number of aircraft that the RAF will use has still to be determined. Those include the future strategic tanker aircraft; the future carrier-borne aircraft; the future offensive air system; the support, amphibious and battlefield rotorcraft; and the UK military flying training system programmes. Some of those programmes are planned to involve private finance initiative solutions where the aircraft will not be owned by MOD.

Mr. Hoyle: Obviously, we welcome those orders and the commitment to BAE Systems in the north-west, which specialises in defence aircraft, but does my hon. Friend share my worry that redundancies are taking place in the north-west with a full order book? The worry is that the company will not be able to complete the orders that the Government have provided the north-west with and benefit from the work that could come out of the joint strike aircraft.

Dr. Moonie: We share my hon. Friend's concern about potential job losses in the north-west. Given the size of the programme to which we are committed, together with the likely outcome in relation to the other aircraft that I mentioned, the company should have a secure future.

Mr. Borrow: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the households of many thousands of my constituents following the redundancy announcements and expected job losses at Warton and Salmesbury in Lancashire. Can he reassure me and them that the orders for Eurofighter and the 6,000 jobs that depend on those orders are secure? Does he understand that the less than wholehearted support for the Eurofighter project from the Conservative party causes my constituents concern about their future?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, who is assiduous in looking after his constituents' interests, that the present programme for Eurofighter is constructed on a solid base. I am happy to say that the Greeks, who announced their intention to purchase Eurofighter, have confirmed that the purchase will go ahead, thereby underpinning the security of long-term jobs in his constituency.

Mr. Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend comment on the disgraceful way in which BAE Systems announced the job losses, given in particular the recent Indian Government announcement that they intend to buy the Hawk jet? Many of the job losses are associated with the work force on that jet.

Dr. Moonie: It is always disappointing when workers learn about their future through other sources, rather than directly. The order book looks quite promising. In his recent visit to India, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was assiduous in promoting the interests of the Hawk aircraft. I hope that redundancies will not be nearly as severe as has been forecast.

Mr. Julian Brazier: To put that impressive-looking list in perspective, will the Minister, first, tell us what proportion of existing RAF aeroplanes are airworthy, and secondly, confirm that the number of


fast-jet fighter pilots is now almost 20 per cent. below manning levels? Are we approaching through the back door the era of unmanned flight?

Dr. Moonie: Unmanned flight seems to be a capacity of the Conservative party. I do not have to hand the figures on current levels of airworthiness—which is hardly surprising, as the matter is somewhat complicated—but I should be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.

Mr. James Gray: The nation will have been pleased to hear the Minister reconfirm that the Government are to acquire 232 Eurofighters. Will he also take this opportunity to reconfirm that there is no slippage whatever in their delivery? In that context, when will the final C130J be delivered to RAF Lyneham in my constituency?

Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that, in the past, there was slippage in the Eurofighter programme—most of which occurred under the previous Government, and is therefore not really a matter for us. We have managed to stabilise the programme—trials are going well—and we hope that it is now on target.
The C130J is clearly a most worthwhile aircraft. I do not have a firm delivery date on the final aircraft, but the in-service delivery date of the 12th aircraft was June 2000. I shall certainly provide the information to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Quentin Davies: May I take the opportunity to remove all ambiguity on the matter, as there is too much misinformation and, sometimes, damned lies from certain quarters—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to any Member of this House.

Mr. Davies: Of course not; I said from certain quarters, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I just wanted to be clear about that.

Mr. Davies: I can give you that assurance absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I also make it absolutely clear that Conservative Members are fully committed to all those programmes, a number of which we launched ourselves, including the Eurofighter and the C130J.
It is very curious that the Government have made no statement today about the joint strike fighter. This morning, there was a report from the Press Association that Ministers were about to do what we have been urging them to do and sign up to the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the project. May I ask Ministers for an assurance that, if they do take that decision, they will come to the House, as they should, and make a proper statement, so that we can question them, rather than simply leaking the decision to the press?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to say that we have certainly not been involved in leaking anything to the press. I am also happy to say that it is normal to wait for a question before one answers it; and, having had a question, I shall

answer it. Although no decision has yet been made on whether we will take the joint strike fighter, we remain fully involved in its development, which is still at a very early stage. It is also no secret that that development is about to proceed to the next stage. Later this week, my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will visit the United States to progress the discussions further.

European Rapid Reaction Force

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement about British armed forces involvement in the European rapid reaction force. [143714]

Mr. David Crausby: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about European defence co-operation. [143715]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There is no standing European rapid reaction force. The United Kingdom has identified a pool of forces and capabilities that would enable it to make a powerful contribution to operations in support of the European Union's common foreign and security policy, when NATO as a whole is not engaged. Participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution, will be matters for decision by the United Kingdom Government in the light of circumstances at the time. I have regular discussions with both my EU and NATO counterparts on all aspects of European defence.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for that woefully inadequate reply. Given that 60 pages of the Nice treaty provide for a separate EU military staff committee and organisation, a strategic planning capability, a satellite centre, an institute of security studies and a force catalogue comprising 100,000 men, 400 combat aircraft and 100 vessels, why cannot he understand what the former British ambassador to NATO, Sir John Weston, emphasised last week—that with a European Union army, NATO will be progressively downgraded as the principal instrument of western defence and security? How does he justify ignoring historical experience and military common sense alike through the pursuit of that craven and foolhardy approach?

Mr. Hoon: Again, I emphasise that there is no European army. The Government are seeking to improve the capabilities of European nations, and the new arrangements will prove an extremely effective means of achieving that. In particular, they will be based on the closest possible ties with NATO. As the hon. Gentleman would have realised if he had read his background documents on Nice more carefully, provision is included for operational planning to be conducted at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. Notwithstanding his observations, there is no intention to establish an EU operational planning capability.

Mr. Crausby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that European nations must work together on defence in order to support NATO? Will he confirm that that will involve


the interchange of kit between European nations? Are not the A400M and the Meteor prime examples of European co-operation?

Mr. Hoon: I am fairly sure that it was President Kennedy who first spoke about a European pillar for NATO. It is in the interests of NATO, the United States and European nations for Europe to be capable of making an effective contribution to the alliance. Nothing would destabilise the alliance more than a perception in the United States that European nations are not prepared to play their part. That is precisely why we are seeking to improve our European capabilities—to strengthen NATO, not to weaken it.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Who in the military chain of command will be responsible for force generation in respect of any force decided under the new arrangements, and what role will the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe have?

Mr. Hoon: Force generation will be conducted precisely as it is currently conducted for multinational operations. There will be an assessment in the United Kingdom of the forces that we can contribute, and that will be set against the situation with which we are required to deal. Part of the planning currently under way concerns the variety of scenarios that will be tested in order to see what forces Europe can contribute. That work will be done carefully by the allies as part of the process of ensuring that a range of capabilities is available. Part of the reason for such a process is to ensure that gaps will be identified; indeed, some have already been recognised. Work will then be undertaken by European nations to improve capabilities. It is important for a close connection to exist between European Union and NATO planning experts.
DSACEUR will be in a crucial position in giving practical advice on the nature of planning that is required. We continue to negotiate the matter with our European allies as part of the NATO process.

Mr. John McFall: In this European defence arena, does my right hon. Friend envisage that our troops will still use depleted uranium? Given that the Ministry of Defence was warned about the issue 10 years ago and that increasing circumstantial evidence is available from troops in America, Iran, Europe and elsewhere, should not the burden of proof be on the Ministry and on Governments, instead of on individuals who are ill? It is they who currently face the burden of proving that their illnesses are a direct result of the use of depleted uranium.

Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, the issue is rather more complicated than he suggests. In the absence of any specific evidence to link depleted uranium with any particular illness suffered by any individual, it is extraordinarily difficult for any Government to prove a negative. That is what his question invites the Government to do, but it is not possible. What is required is that the best scientific and medical evidence available to the Government be relied on in taking decisions on the use of a highly effective weapon.

Mr. John Maples: Have the Government entered into any unpublished agreements on the proposed EU military capability?

Mr. Hoon: No.

Troop Deployments

Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement about the number of British troops deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo. [143716]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the week beginning 8 January 2001, the number of British troops deployed in Bosnia was 2,265, and in Kosovo it was 3,351.

Ms Ward: Next week, I shall visit Kosovo with the Royal Marines as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I expect to be asked a number of questions as a result of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last week. Is my right hon. Friend now able to give more details about the testing programme for depleted uranium, so that hon. Members taking part in the scheme will be able to enlighten members of the services during their visit to Kosovo?

Mr. Hoon: The enhanced screening programme described by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last week will require extensive consultation, not least with the national screening committee of the Department of Health, the Royal Society and other respected scientific and medical bodies. I hope that we shall be able to complete those consultations by the end of March. In addition, we shall invite the views of groups representing veterans.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State ignore the support that he is getting from Conservative Members on the question of depleted uranium and listen to Back Benchers from his own party and others who are extremely concerned about this issue? In particular, will he re-examine the parliamentary answers given to me on 17 November 1998 and on 28 January 1999 on depleted uranium? Those answers were clearly misleading in the light of last week's statement, and seem to be part of a cover-up on the issue.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman insists on using a term such as "cover-up" to describe a situation in which the Government have consistently, over many years, acknowledged the low-level risk that exists—for example, the risk to soldiers who go into the burned-out shell of a tank immediately after it has been hit by a depleted uranium shell. We have given clear instructions that they should approach such a vehicle only when wearing appropriate protective clothing.
Information on this matter has been published again and again, including on the Ministry of Defence website. It is readily available for the right hon. Gentleman to see, and I am sorry that he believes that it has been the subject


of a cover-up, because the Ministry has tried extraordinarily hard over a long period to publish as much of this information as it possibly can.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government deserve to be congratulated on the actions that they took in Kosovo, without which there would undoubtedly have been no change in Serbia? However, is he also aware that I and many other hon. Members are very concerned about reports, some in today's newspapers, about the effects of depleted uranium, including cancer risks, on civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia, arising from the operation that took place there in 1995? Is he now willing to go further than the statement made last week in recognising the dangers involved, and to make a further statement to the House at an appropriate time?

Mr. Hoon: May I give my hon. Friend some of the background information on which our assessment has been made? It is important to consider this issue in context.
A specific study has been carried out by the school of epidemiology and health sciences at Manchester university, which considered the 53,000 people deployed to the Gulf against a control sample of members of the armed forces who were not deployed there. Of those who had served in the Gulf, 452 had died of all causes by 30 June 2000, compared with 439 in the control group, and 156 had died of disease, compared with 190 in the control group. It is perhaps particularly relevant to my hon. Friend's question that 64 Gulf veterans had died of all forms of cancer, compared with 68 in the control group.
If one deploys around 53,000 people in a particular situation, there is, sadly, a reasonable chance that a number of them will die of cancer, whether they are in the Gulf or the Balkans. Wherever they are in the United Kingdom, the same statistical incidence of cancers will arise.
There is absolutely no discrepancy in any of the statistics between those who have been to the Gulf or the Balkans and those who have remained in the United Kingdom. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the matter dispassionately, rather than simply relying on some of the more fanciful headlines that have appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. Robert Key: If I may say so, the Secretary of State's defensive tone is redolent of the situation some years ago when my party was in government, and was accused of such things by the then Opposition. On 28 April 1999 the then Minister for the Armed Forces told the Select Committee on Defence, which was then probing the question of depleted uranium:
if there is anything that we are not doing that we should be doing, I want to know about it and put it right …
Moreover, Conservative Ministers in the previous Government were not aware of the impact of depleted uranium munitions. Why are Ministers now repudiating the Ministry of Defence advice, which was in wide circulation in Kosovo in the summer of 1999, and which was given to the staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as to British forces? What is the Secretary of State doing now to protect British and other troops in Kosovo? What is he doing to protect

civilian communities in Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia? Above all, what is being done to protect and educate children in that respect? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports from Brussels, following the first meeting of the EU Political and Security Committee under the Swedish presidency, that the European rapid reaction force will be armed with depleted uranium weapons?

Mr. Hoon: I found the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question a little puzzling. We do not believe that there is any significant risk associated with the use of depleted uranium. I have described the precise circumstances in whit h both the present Government and the previous Government have recognised there is a risk. Details of that risk have been published, and instructions have been given to the armed forces to guard against it. As for the civilian population, efforts have recently been made by British forces to identify sites in the area of Kosovo for which they are responsible, where depleted uranium is likely to have been used. Those sites have been examined and no evidence of any increase in the level of background radiation has been found. Therefore risk of harm, either to members of Britain's armed forces or to the civilian population, does not arise from the use of depleted uranium—certainly so long after the events that led to the use of those shells in the first place.
I have made it clear on behalf of the Government that unless there is any clear scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with any specific illnesses, Britain's armed forces will continue to use depleted uranium shells both nationally and in a multinational context.

Armed Forces (Education)

Mrs. Joan Humble: If he will make a statement on developments in education and training for the armed forces. [143717]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As has been well demonstrated by the recent deployments to Sierra Leone and in the Balkans, the training of our armed forces is of a very high standard. To maintain that standard and to ensure that our training and education arrangements for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians continue to meet defence needs in the 21st century, my noble Friend Lord Robertson, when Secretary of State for Defence, announced a wide-ranging and fundamental review of education and individual training in the Department. This review is due to be completed this spring, when I will make a further statement to the House.

Mrs. Humble: My hon. Friend will be aware that the armed forces recruit many young people. Will he assure me that when they leave, they take with them appropriate transferable qualifications that they can take out into the wider world of work?

Mr. Spellar: We certainly recognise that the vast majority of our people will go on to other careers and occupations. We are talking to the appropriate authorities and qualifications bodies to ensure that when people leave they take with them qualifications that recognise their attainments, and what they have achieved while they have been with the armed forces—not only in traditional


technical areas but in the high level of training in leadership and management qualities that the armed forces give to our people.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister place in the Library, or at least supply to the Select Committee on Defence, details of the training that our armed forces have been given in handling depleted uranium and vehicles that might have been hit by depleted uranium shells? Will he comment on the fact that in his statement on Tuesday he made no mention of the Royal Navy using depleted uranium in its Phalanx guns? I was always told that that was non-hazardous ammunition, but the Americans are now withdrawing it in favour of a more expensive ammunition. Why did the Ministry of Defence announce on Saturday that it was withdrawing the ammunition because the Americans were no longer manufacturing it? Why did it decide to withdraw it?

Mr. Spellar: We have not yet made the decision to withdraw it. We are phasing out depleted uranium ammunition on Phalanx because the Americans have found that the tungsten round has a further reach and greater accuracy, leading to a higher probability of knocking out a missile. The difference between the role of Phalanx and land-based or air-launched depleted uranium weapons is that the former is for missiles launched at our ships. Therefore, by definition, Phalanx is unlikely to be used against heavy tank battle armour, against which depleted uranium is the only effective weapon.
Not only this Administration but a previous Administration published quite a bit of information on depleted uranium, which, with the advent of internet technology, has been placed on our website. A wide range of information is available. The instructions given to our forces in theatre are exactly consistent with what we have said throughout, including in my statement last Tuesday, and reflect our responsibility for ensuring, in the particular circumstances outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that people take adequate precautions, while also looking at the very low level of risk in other circumstances.

Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the review of training to which my hon. Friend referred. As someone who has served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I know that there is concern about the extent of health and safety training with respect to depleted uranium. Several people in Staffordshire who served in the Gulf were not aware— or appeared not to be aware at the time—of any need for health and safety training, particularly for the use of depleted uranium. Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to how the precautionary principle can be included in that aspect of health and safety training?

Mr. Spellar: We certainly take that very seriously, which is why there has been a series of instructions. It is fair to say that depleted uranium was used for the first time in combat in the Gulf. The evidence is that that information did not get through to some units at the time. However, there is no evidence of a higher level of illness arising from such occurrences.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend referred to her membership of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).
They demonstrated, once again, the enormous value of the scheme in enabling Members on both sides of the House to hear the views of the armed forces and to gain a much better understanding.
Our understanding, from the figures rightly identified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that there is no increase in illness as a result of the use of depleted uranium, and epidemiological statistics bear that out.

Royal Navy

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the seagoing capacity of the Royal Navy. [143719]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The strategic defence review envisaged an emerging role for maritime forces in a wide range of operations in littoral areas in addition to more traditional naval tasks. It reflected changes in the potential maritime threat, our forces' missions and the likely geographic location of future operations. The Royal Navy has the seagoing capacity to fulfil the role envisaged under the strategic defence review and, as demonstrated by recent deployments to Sierra Leone, has the capacity to react to changing situations. With the introduction of type 45 destroyers, the planned replacement aircraft carriers and the Astute class submarines, the Royal Navy will continue to be very well placed to meet its missions effectively.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as I, too, am part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and served for six days with HMS Cumberland in the Gulf. Which fleet submarines are currently at sea and operational? I understand that, as of last October, no submarines were able to go to the Gulf to assist HMS Cumberland. My information is that there are plans to scrap HMS Sovereign before her time for withdrawal is due; all 12 of the hunter-killer classes are currently being investigated after coolant leaks; HMS Spartan is in refit; HMS Superb, Sceptre and Splendid are undergoing safety inspections; and all seven of the modern Trafalgar class ships are out of action. Does that not leave our other naval vessels completely exposed—with no submarine defences?

Mr. Spellar: The international security situation does not bear out the particular fears expressed by the hon. Lady; of course, if there were to be a change, we would take emergency action. I confirm that seven of the SSNs are affected by a problem to the pipework that forms part of the reactor cooling system. A repair programme—

Mr. John Bercow: Pitiful!

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is jumping about in his usual excitable way. Nearly all those vessels were purchased and built during the period when the Conservatives were in government. I do not know why he thinks that this is a party political point.
A repair programme is in place. Four other SSNs are undergoing refit, maintenance or repair; HMS Triumph has been inspected, is free of the flaw and remains available for programming. I am also pleased to


report that, working in close collaboration with industry, the repair programme is advancing well; it is very much a tribute to the skills both of members of the Royal Navy and of the commercial contractors involved.

Ms Rachel Squire: I, too, had the invaluable and rewarding experience of spending five to six days on HMS Cumberland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, along with the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I pay tribute to the captain, officers and crew of HMS Cumberland and to the rest of our Royal Navy. Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to warship building and to maintaining a repair and refit capacity at Rosyth dockyard and other UK facilities?

Mr. Spellar: As I pointed out earlier, we have already launched a considerable programme of new warship construction. Indeed, it is one of the biggest programmes ever undertaken by this country and will help to keep the Royal Navy at the forefront of the world's navies—especially in its blue water capability. My hon. Friend will be aware that a study is being undertaken of warship maintenance. It is considering the capability both in our own dockyards and in those of several of the private contractors. Considerable discussion is taking place with the companies concerned and, obviously, with the trade unions that represent our own work force. We hope to be able to bring that matter to a conclusion, so that we can have a sustainable repair capacity, taking into account the excellent—indeed, world-class—repair capability in our dockyards.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph reported that the Government had ordered two new aircraft carriers. Will the Minister confirm that? If, as I suspect, that report is erroneous, will he tell the House when the orders for the two new aircraft carriers will be placed?

Mr. Spellar: I have not seen the Sunday Telegraph article to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, we are very much on course with the programme; we have placed contracts for the evaluation and planning of the new aircraft carriers. In parallel with that, we are undertaking the work referred to today—evaluating possible future carrier-borne aircraft in order to provide and maintain that distinctive capability, which as we have seen, even in recent years, is enormously effective in projecting Britain's power and our force for good in the world.

Mr. Syd Rapson: With regard to type 45 destroyers, will my hon. Friend try to ensure that BAE Systems does not become the monopoly shipbuilder in this country and that Vosper Thornycroft can participate in a contract, as agreed at the pre-contract stage, so that shipbuilding remains in Southampton and possibly in Portsmouth?

Mr. Spellar: There has certainly been no change to the Ministry of Defence procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer programme, as announced by my right hon. Friend in July 2000. Under the current strategy, we anticipate that Vosper Thornycroft will be subcontracted for a substantial element of work on the first of class and on the assembly and manufacture of the second of class.

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the future of DERA, Aberporth. [143720]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): It is our intention to proceed with the implementation of the core competence model for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of the public-private partnership that my right hon. Friend outlined in his statement to the House on 24 July last year. Under core competence, about three quarters of the DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector. The capabilities provided by DERA, Aberporth will form part of the new company and will therefore transfer to the private sector.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply and apologise for not being present at the start of Question Time.
May I draw the Minister's attention to DERA's application for Aberporth under the capital modernisation fund? That is an extremely exciting prospect for regional economic development in a rural area and will put NewDERA on the right footing. However, indications from Treasury officials are not so good. What can his Department do to get the best possible application for Aberporth so that it has the best possible future?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to the tell the hon. Gentleman that we are considering two options for Aberporth's future that DERA and the Ministry of Defence have been discussing with the Welsh Development Agency and local bodies. The first is a gradual improvement to the runway and associated radar and terminal facilities, possibly in partnership with a private operator, to bring the facilities up to a standard that would allow them to be licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The second option involves a possible redevelopment of the technical site and its expansion on to part of the airfield to form a business park. That would be done in conjunction with the WDA and would also accommodate staff from the privatised DERA. We very much hope that the redeveloped DERA facility will attract firms to move into the area and create further employment opportunities.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is it not ironic that the new organisation, which is being formed in the teeth of the opposition of the unanimous view of the Defence Committee, our allies in the United States and Her Majesty's Opposition, should receive a final insult under new Labour, which, having betrayed DERA, has decided to call it NewDERA?

Dr. Moonie: No, it is not.

Smart Procurement

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on progress with the smart procurement initiative. [143721]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Lucky me.
The reforms that we have put in place to improve the equipment acquisition process of the Ministry of Defence have made good progress and substantial savings have been made. We completed the implementation phase of the smart procurement initiative in summer 2000 with the final roll-out of 138 integrated project teams. We are sustaining and broadening smart procurement principles under what we now call smart acquisition.

Mr. St. Aubyn: A company in my constituency had to take a prime contractor of the Ministry to court to obtain payment, and since then has received no work from the contractor. Will the Minister confirm that payments to prime contractors under the smart procurement initiative have been delayed because the Ministry has lost control of the delegated payments and it has run out of money this year?

Dr. Moonie: I clearly cannot comment on an individual case without prior notice. We are well aware of the problems that contractors and subcontractors may experience if payment is not made, promptly and we do our very best to correct them.

Mr. Andy King: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Conservatives left office they left a legacy of £3.25 billion of overcost on the top 25 equipment projects? When we consider that alongside the cuts that were so damaging to the strategic performance of our armed forces, we see that it surely proves to the people of this country that we should never again trust the Conservatives with the defence of our nation.

Dr. Moonie: You, Mr. Speaker, will not be surprised that I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to say that thanks to our improvements to the procurement process, we are on course to save some £2 billion.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it an example of smart procurement to save a derisory sum by removing the planned cannon from the Eurofighter Typhoon, or is it penny-pinching folly?

Dr. Moonie: That is another piece of iterative behaviour from Conservative Members. We have considered the question of the cannon at great length on many occasions. It is the wish of our Royal Air Force that the cannon should not be fitted to this aircraft because it might cause problems, and we are happy to go along with that.

Public Accounts Committee Report

Mr. David Rendel: When he plans to respond to the 45th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1999–2000, HC975. [143725]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We will respond to that report shortly.

Mr. Rendel: The Ministry keeps saying that it cannot overturn the findings of the air inquiry because no new evidence has been produced. Will the Minister confirm that no new evidence emerged between the original finding by Wing Commander Pulford that the pilots were in no way to be criticised and the final finding by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten that the pilots were to blame?

Mr. Spellar: That point has been made several times and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the engagement of the Air Marshals. The initial process aimed to establish fact and the final process aimed fully to evaluate it. We have said a number of times to hon. Members and others that if new evidence emerges we will examine it. A member of the other place has submitted a dossier, which we are fully evaluating. We are also considering the Public Accounts Committee report. We will respond to both in due course, and if no new evidence emerges we will stand by our previous decision.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Why do not Ministers say to the head of the air inquiry and the RAF, "Thank you for your detailed work, which we appreciate, but we want to make a political decision that the situation subsequent to the inquiry, in which guilt does not have to be found, should apply and the pilots in this case absolved of blame"?

Mr. Spellar: It would be quite inappropriate to make a "political decision" in a matter that is for the judgment of those with professional expertise. They have made their best judgment of the circumstances. That is what we pay them for, and that is what we expect them to do as part of their duty. If subsequent evidence invalidates that judgment, there will of course be grounds for reopening the inquiry, but until that happens there are no grounds for doing so.

European Security

Mr. Edward Leigh: What recent meetings he has had with European Commission officials to discuss European security. [143726]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The development of European security and defence policy is a matter for the European Council, not the European Commission. I have therefore had no meetings with Commission officials on this subject, nor do I have any planned.

Mr. Leigh: It would be nice if Defence Ministers, in attempting to answer the question, tried to give the House the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than having it dragged out of them inch by inch, week by week. Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), to which he received a waffly non-reply? What will be the role of DSACEUR?
What will be the command structure? Why did the Secretary of State most revealingly say that these matters will be taken forward in consultation with EU planners, when until now we have been told that there is no separate planning role for that force? What is going on? Can we have the whole truth?

Mr. Hoon: On the subject of things being nice, it would be nice if an hon. Member and former Minister knew what he was talking about when tabling questions. Clearly, he did not; otherwise, he would not have referred to the European Commission.
We have made it absolutely clear time and again that it is important that there should be a close connection between the European Union and NATO. We have said that the planning process should be the responsibility of NATO; that is where planning will be most effectively conducted. Obviously, there are still matters that require further negotiation and discussion. In the light of those negotiations, it is strongly the British Government's view that the process should conclude that it is for NATO to provide the planning assets rather than any other organisation—not least the European Commission—that may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

El Savlador

Mr. Tam Dalyell: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, in the light of the horrendous earthquake, she will make a statement on Government aid to El Salvador.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question.
At 17.33 on Saturday 13 January, a major earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale occurred off the coast of El Salvador. The epicentre was offshore, about 105 km south south-east of the capital, San Salvador. It was also felt in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and as far afield as Mexico City.
The Government of El Salvador report more than 400 people killed, about 800 injured and more than 1,300 still missing, many of them in an area of San Salvador which has experienced a major landslide. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing sympathy to the people of El Salvador. The airport was damaged and, although some relief flights are being allowed to use it, it is closed to civilian traffic. Since the main earthquake, there have been a number of aftershocks, some of which have been of significant strength. The President has declared a national emergency and appealed for international assistance.
The Department for International Development emergency response centre has been operating round the clock since the earthquake struck and is in regular contact with both British embassy officials in El Salvador and operational agencies on the ground in order to obtain further information and to provide advice on regional procurement of urgently needed supplies. We have been in close contact with the Ministry of Defence but, regrettably, the West Indies guard ship is not in the area.
We responded immediately to the preliminary appeal from the United Nations and the Red Cross. We have given financial support to the UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team, which includes a British member, Mr. Joe Bishop; and we have given a commitment to fund Oxfam's emergency water and sanitation programme and the Pan American Health Organisation's programme of emergency medical assistance.
Since Hurricane Mitch hit the region in October 1998, we have been providing support to the Centre for the Co-ordination of Natural Disaster Preparedness in Central America for a disaster preparedness programme in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and plan to support a similar disaster preparedness programme with PAHO focusing on reducing vulnerability in the health sector.
I am sure that the House will agree that, once again, the United Kingdom has responded quickly and effectively to help people struck by a natural disaster. Our commitment to date is now more than £600,000, but I assure the House that we will respond sympathetically to any further requests.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. Given that 1,300 people are missing, is not speed of the essence? What practical help is expected of

us in repairing the airport? What will be the role of the DFID emergency response centre over the next fortnight? Is regional procurement part of the answer to what is obviously an urgent problem, where speed must be emphasised?

Mr. Foulkes: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Speed is of the essence. If people are trapped—not under buildings that have been destroyed, but under the landslip, as they are in this case—we need to get to them as quickly as possible. The Government of El Salvador are well organised and immediate assistance has been provided from their own resources and from the surrounding area. It is, of course, quicker to get in assistance and teams from the area than it is to fly them in from many thousands of miles away.
We shall certainly give consideration to repairing the airport, although I am not sure whether it is included in the list of requests that we have received from the Government. We are going through those requests for various forms of assistance, considering what we might be able to supply from the emergency supplies that we have here in the United Kingdom, and what might be procured locally with financial assistance from the UK. Again, it is quicker, more effective and cheaper to procure many supplies locally. The DFID emergency response centre will remain open 24 hours a day for the foreseeable future to deal with the emergency, as we have done in respect of previous emergencies and shall do in respect of future emergencies.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I wish to express the Opposition's horror and sadness at the tragic events in El Salvador. We welcome the prompt action taken by the Minister to date in sending help on behalf of all of us. I assure him of our full support for any reasonable action that he and the British Government might take to assist in the search and rescue phase immediately after the earthquake and thereafter.
I have five specific and brief questions. Although I welcome the early financial support sent by the Government, does the Minister share my concern about the $50,000 made available to the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs? He will appreciate the House's concerns about the past performance of that UN agency—its slowness to act and inefficiency have been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Would not our money be better spent exclusively through respected agencies such as the Red Cross and Oxfam?
Secondly, according to the United Nations resident co-ordinator's office in El Salvador, there appears still to be a need for additional search and rescue teams, and recent television footage appears to show that little, if any, heat-seeking equipment is currently being used to find people under the rubble. What requests were made for such equipment for search and rescue and precisely when were they made? Were we not in a position to send some specialist teams on Saturday or Sunday, and is it now too late?
Thirdly, does the Minister share my disappointment that the West Indies guard ship is not in the area, especially in the light of the great contribution that it made during the crisis in Montserrat? Has he learned from his Ministry of Defence colleagues where the ship is, if it is not in the region, and whether there is any prospect of it being sent nearer in the very near future?
Fourthly, what talks has the Minister had with the Disasters Emergency Committee about an appeal for the region? Would he support such an appeal? Can he tell the public today what they should do and what they should collect if they want to help?
Fifthly, have the Government been in contact with the European Community Humanitarian Office? If so, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, after the emergency phase is over, EU aid will not be delayed in reaching the region as it was in the wake of Hurricane Mitch, when it took two and a half years to reach the area in need? Finally, I again express the Opposition's support for the swift action that the Minister has taken.

Mr. Foulkes: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks, which are appreciated. They will be appreciated above all by the staff of the emergency response team office, who have been working 24 hours a day since the earthquake happened and have contacted me at odd hours to keep me informed of progress.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the $50,000 for OCHA. The UN team is already operating on the ground, and Joe Bishop is part of that team. The hon. Gentleman might know that, sadly, another team was in a helicopter that crashed in Mongolia the other day, and one British member of that team was killed. They are brave men who do a great deal of good work under the auspices of the United Nations, and we find the organisation to which they belong effective in the work that it does.
The hon. Gentleman's question on search and rescue teams was precisely that which I asked. We have a number of such teams, and I have met Willie MacMartin and the International Rescue Corps, who do excellent work out of Grangemouth. When I asked why we were not sending out such people quickly, I was told that there are enough search and rescue teams on the ground to deal with the immediate emergency. Because a landslip is causing particular problems—rather than the destruction of buildings that we saw in Turkey, where thermal imaging equipment was useful—I am told that shovels are needed, rather than thermal imaging equipment.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was disappointed that the guard ship is not in the area. He will be pleased to hear that it is helping us in another emergency, but it is a long way away and cannot be mobilised quickly. On the Disasters Emergency Committee, I have not been in touch with it personally, but, following a request that I made earlier today, my officials are contacting it to see if it plans to have a co-ordinated emergency appeal. That is the committee's decision, not the Government's. In the meantime, however, I support what the hon. Gentleman said, and anyone wanting to helping people in that appalling situation in El Salvador would be well advised to contribute generously to Oxfam, the Red Cross—I am not sure whether Ministers are supposed to say this, but I shall say it nevertheless—and other organisations working in the area.
On the hon. Gentleman's fifth question, the European Community Humanitarian Office has already committed 2 million euros to help the area. There has been substantial improvement in the operation of European development assistance and humanitarian aid in the past few months under pressure which was led, I might add,

by the United Kingdom. I was in Rome last Thursday, talking to the Italian Development Minister about co-ordinating pressure on the European Commission to make it more effective. EuropeAid, the new operational arm of the European Commission, started on 1 January, and this will be the first test of how effective it is. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it comes through that test and shows that combined European assistance can be just as effective as that provided bilaterally by countries such as the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I join others in congratulating the Minister on his Department's rapid and effective response, which will be much appreciated by people in El Salvador in getting through the terrible times that they face in the next few days? Obviously, any further rapid help that can be given to assist in finding bodies and, hopefully, people who are still alive, will be useful.
Will the Minister cast his mind a little further forward? In the process of reconstruction which, once again, El Salvador and other countries will have to go through, will he assure me that the Government are prepared to support further information and research into earthquake prediction in the region, and in particular assist with planning, building design and advice on how buildings should be constructed to withstand earthquakes? That will help to find the reason why so many houses have been constructed in areas where a mud flow is likely after an earthquake. Once again, it appears that the poorest people in one of the poorest parts of the world are suffering the most from these disasters as a result of the bad planning and bad housing construction with which they must live.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I remind him that, in my statement, I said that we are supporting the Centre for the Co-ordination of Natural Disaster Preparedness following Hurricane Mitch. We learn from those disasters, the way in which we respond to them and, sometimes, the inadequacies in our response. We recognise that prevention is better than cure We cannot stop natural disasters, but we can mitigate their effects as much as possible, which we are eager to do. We do that in our environmental work with developing countries, to try to minimise the effects of floods. Building design is important, as are the places where houses are built. That does not just apply to developing countries—hon. Members and others who live in England will know that recent floods showed that, even in the United Kingdom, we can have problems when houses are built in areas that are prone to flooding or other natural disaster effects.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: My party shares the shock and sadness in the House at news of another disaster affecting people who are least able to cope with one, and welcomes the prompt action taken by the Government to send relief to the area. Does the Minister agree that, rather than trying continually to strengthen OCHA, the establishment of a permanent United Nations rapid reaction force would enable assessments of and responses to disasters to be swiftly and more effectively carried out? In view of the fact that the USA is spending


$1.3 billion in military aid to Colombia, which is likely to cause far more suffering than it relieves, how much aid is it sending to El Salvador?

Mr. Foulkes: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I support the principle of a UN rapid reaction force, but we should not necessarily think that it would be a panacea to deal with all disasters and suddenly magic away their results, because it would not. We need a quick response, good organisation by the national Government on the ground and good co-ordination by the international agencies involved, and we are moving towards that without necessarily having the formal structure that she advocates. We are certainly considering ways in which we can co-ordinate the national Governments and the international agencies in our collective response to such natural disasters. I shall leave United States policy on Colombia to other people and stick to the subject before the House.

Mr. John McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for the speedy response. He will know that sanitation problems are great in such situations and that outbreaks of diseases occur. Have the Government made any contacts and can he make any progress on that issue? He knows that there has been great solidarity between the Scottish charity agencies and central America over the years. Are agencies such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Christian Aid and others being used? They have expertise as they have worked in central America for many years, and they could make a worthwhile contribution to the exercise.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to in my hon. Friend. I know of the solidarity between Scotland and El Salvador, which I have visited a number of times. On the radio this morning, I heard Father Michael Campbell-Johnston talk about experiencing the earthquake in his pick-up, in which I have travelled with him during a flood. The pick-up began to float down the road in the direction in which we were not driving, so I know the situation on the ground. We are in touch, and the Department, consistent with the need to respond quickly to what is happening on the ground, is also contacting agencies in the United Kingdom—Christian Aid, SCIAF and others—to find out what they are doing and whether we can give them assistance.
Disease is a problem that will occur and, from our experience, we know that dysentery, cholera and other such diseases will threaten after the first few days. That is why we are working with the Pan American Health Organisation and have given it £300,000 for immediate medical emergency supplies. I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that that is the right way forward.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In a disaster of such magnitude, is not it reassuring that the United Kingdom can send not just sympathy but practical, pre-planned help, mobilised from the region to a large extent? Can any men, women or equipment of Her Majesty's armed forces still in Belize to support the jungle warfare training school be utilised to alleviate suffering?

Mr. Foulkes: Again, I am grateful. I have had discussions with the hon. Gentleman, who knows Latin America extremely well and understands the situation. One of the first questions I asked of our officials was whether they had been in touch with the Ministry of Defence not just about the guard ship, but about the residual garrison in Belize. They had, but what we have left there does not meet the needs of El Salvador. Had it done so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom I spoke earlier, would have made that equipment and those people available as quickly as possible. Sadly, they were not of the kind needed.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Everyone must have been shocked by the media pictures from Santa Tecla. At least it is relatively close to San Salvador and is reasonably accessible. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the speedy action that has been taken. Will he bear in mind the needs of more remote areas, such as Santiago de Maria, which is near to the coast and where, I have been told, 90 per cent. of all houses have been damaged or destroyed?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend, who also knows the area, has put his finger on an immediate problem. The information we are getting is from San Salvador and the immediate surrounding area. We envisage problems in areas further away from the capital, but we have not heard anything yet. We are trying to get as much information as possible, and to see how we can respond in the area that he mentioned and in other areas remote from the capital. We shall respond as sympathetically as we can to any requests from those areas.

Neighbourhood Renewal

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal action plan "new commitment to neighbourhood renewal", which we are publishing today.
When we published the urban and rural White Papers in November, we set out our vision for ensuring a sustainable quality of life. We made it clear that an important part of the framework was to turn round our most deprived areas, and that the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal would spell out our ideas. This strategy is a long-term response to the appalling conditions created over decades in communities up and down the country.
When the Government came to office, the most deprived areas of England had, when compared with the rest, almost two thirds more unemployment; a mortality ratio 30 per cent. higher; and two to three times the level of poor housing, vandalism and dereliction. Over the 1980s and into the 1990s, the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country grew steadily. Places that started with the highest unemployment often also saw the greatest rise in unemployment. Health inequalities widened. The proportion of people living in low-income households more than doubled. That was partly the result of global social and economic changes, but it was also a legacy of a lack of political attention and of policies that did not work.
Past Government action was unfocused and unco-ordinated. Departments worked at cross purposes on problems that needed a joined-up response. Regeneration initiatives were short-term and limited to a few areas. Mainstream services, such as schools and hospitals, were failing in far too many deprived neighbourhoods. Crucially, there was a failure to harness the knowledge and energy of local people, and to empower them to work out their own solutions.
The result was both socially and economically damaging. Communities were trapped in unemployment, and deprived of the good schools and services that would help them to get back on their feet. The economy was deprived of workers, taxpayers, customers and entrepreneurs, and the bills of social failure mounted up.
The Government have made tackling this long-term decline a priority from the outset, through new policies such as sure start, raising school standards, the new deal, crime reduction, the health plan and the new deal for communities. Those policies are already showing results. Britain is a fairer and more prosperous country. Economic prosperity and educational opportunity have increased in all areas. In 19 of the local authorities with the highest unemployment rates, unemployment has fallen faster than the national average, and 44 of the most deprived local authorities are among those with the fastest improving key stage 2 numeracy results.
However, deep-rooted problems require a long-term and integrated approach that can be sure of avoiding the mistakes of past decades.
In 1998, the social exclusion unit was asked to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. More than 400 people from inside and outside Government have

been involved with the SEU in developing the strategy through 18 policy action teams. In addition, thousands of other people up and down the country, many of whom live and work in deprived neighbourhoods, responded to the consultation on the framework for the strategy that was published last April. In parallel, last year's spending review identified new resources to be invested in improvement.
That produced a framework for action which has the support of the people who need to make it work on the ground. It sets out an ambitious vision: that within 10 to 20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live, and that the gap between the poorest neighbourhoods and the rest will have been narrowed. That is indeed an ambitious goal, but, in the Government's view, it is a vital one. It will take time to achieve, but we have established clear measures to chart our path towards it.
The action plan sets out a three-year commitment to raising the standard and performance of public-sector services in the most deprived areas, with the following clear outcomes: reducing crime; reducing unemployment; improving education and skills; improving health; and improving housing and the physical environment.
The strategy has three key elements. First, there are new policies, funding and targets to tackle the causes of neighbourhood decline, such as unemployment, crime and poor services. Mainstream services—health, law and order, housing and education—will for the first time be judged on their achievements in improving things where they are worst, rather than just in relation to national averages. For example, the Department for Education and Employment will work towards ensuring that by 2004 no local education authority has fewer than 38 per cent. of pupils getting five good grades at GCSE; and by 2005 no area should have a burglary rate more than three times the national average.
In the 2000 spending review, Departments were given substantial new resources—for instance, the £1.6 billion increase in spending on the police by 2003–04, and the rise in education and health spending. This year, they will review their resource allocations to ensure that they meet their targets.
Secondly, we will promote integrated action at local level to get services to work better, and to deliver for their communities.
Local implementation of the strategy in each area will he the responsibility of a single body, the local strategic partnership. The partnerships will bring together public, private and voluntary service providers with the community and business sectors. They will be responsible for drawing up local strategies that address the specific problems and aspirations of all their deprived neighbourhoods, and give communities a single door to knock on so that they are not endlessly passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide £800 million over the next three years to help local strategic partnerships in the 88 most deprived areas to kick-start the process. In addition, I am announcing today that a community empowerment fund of over £35 million will support communities, enabling them to develop their ideas for change and to participate as equal partners in local strategic partnerships. It will


amount to an average of £400,000 per area over the next three years, and will allow all residents the chance to have their say.
There will be other models for community involvement. A £50 million community chest fund will give communities in such areas small grants to help them run their own projects, and we will put £45 million into at least 30 neighbourhood management pathfinder projects over the next three years. Those projects will explore the benefits of putting one person, or a team of people, in charge of looking after a neighbourhood. They will provide a local presence to whom residents can go if they have concerns about the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood manager will have the clout to get things done in the area.
These measures are essential. Communities are at the heart of neighbourhood renewal. Some past Government efforts to deal with neighbourhood deprivation failed because they did not engage effectively with communities in those areas. We must learn from that. People living in deprived neighbourhoods know their area better than anyone else. They must be at the heart of neighbourhood renewal.
The third key strand of the strategy is better national and regional support for local activity. Central Government must be more joined up and work better with their local partners. The strategy will ensure that that happens. We must end the problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods which are shunted from one service provider to the next and from one Department to the next, with no one taking responsibility.
In September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that a new neighbourhood renewal unit in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be established by April. The unit, headed by Joe Montgomery, director of regeneration at the London borough of Lewisham, will have a cross-cutting, outward focus. It will be staffed by civil servants from across Whitehall and secondees with a broad range of experience in working with local communities. It will be responsible for overseeing and for co-ordinating the implementation of the strategy. It will ensure that the Government as a whole deliver on their commitments to neighbourhood renewal, supported by neighbourhood renewal teams in Government offices and annual statistics about how neighbourhoods are progressing.
As our vision turns into reality in more and more neighbourhoods, people on the ground will see a huge difference. For the first time, someone locally will be prepared and empowered to take responsibility for the many joined-up problems that the poorest neighbourhoods face. There will be a genuine opportunity for residents to get involved, and communities will have resources to support them in that. Residents will see further improvements in local and regional economies, new ideas such as neighbourhood wardens and IT centres coming on stream, and improvements in the quality of core public services such as schools, health and policing. Areas that suffer from the worst performance at the moment will see standards brought up to minimum floors.
It is easy to be sceptical about change, but the improved policies of the past three years and the concrete examples of what can be achieved by community groups and social entrepreneurs are a measure of what can be achieved. They give us confidence that we can aim for a position

where more neighbourhoods are advancing on all fronts. The new commitment to neighbourhood renewal builds on existing policies: to end boom and bust; to put the economy on a stable footing; to invest in public services; to invest in people and their futures; and to take active measures to ensure that everyone benefits from the prosperity and opportunity that we have created.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I am glad that I came in.
I thank the Minister for giving us an advance copy of her statement and for coming to the House to take questions. With the greatest respect to her, it is odd that the strategy announcement was made this morning at the Ocean estate, Stepney by the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security and assorted other senior hangers-on, while the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will do for the House.
The statement has an interesting title—"new commitment to neighbourhood renewal." It is not clear whether it is a new commitment to neighbourhood renewal after the previous one failed, or a new-found commitment that the Government want to be seen to be committed to before a general election. However, the Opposition welcome any genuine moves to raise the problems of urban regeneration up the agenda and to bring about practical solutions. We particularly welcome any moves that seek to involve and to empower the community at all levels, with a genuinely bottom-up approach.
Many of the community-based regeneration projects that I have seen in recent months—whether the Royds community association in Bradford or similar organisations in Sheffield or Brent—say that progress is best made when communities are provided with the tools and set free to get on with the job at the sharp end, with minimal interference from the Government. I am pleased, albeit suspiciously, that the Government are starting to acknowledge that the solution to urban regeneration problems is an holistic one, involving making communities safer; ensuring that they have decent schools to which parents want to send their children rather than being forced to get out to get them an education; and making them places where businesses want to invest.
Such an approach is at the heart of our "Believing in our Cities" policy document, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) launched last year. That document is all about putting in place building blocks for sustainable communities, not only depending on bricks and mortar. However, that is barely a "new approach" to public investment—as the Prime Minister put it today in his speech in Stepney. After four years of warm soundbites, unfulfilled promises and failing delivery, people will want to know exactly how the scheme will work in practice, if at all, and to ask the following questions.
As the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently noted:
The quality of services provided to urban neighbourhoods is very poor despite the large amount of mainstream funds spent.
Why will the money that the Minister has announced be spent better? We are told that the new neighbourhood managers are to act as an interface between Government agencies and communities. Is not such interface made


necessary by the fragmentation and complication of the Government's plethora of competing schemes under the heading of urban regeneration—such as education action zones, health action zones, the new deal for communities, renewal areas, and so on? Has not that complication made the whole business of urban regeneration bureaucratic, administratively costly and much removed from the communities which they are supposedly there to benefit and which now need the supposed remedies? Was not dome tsar Lord Falconer supposed to have sorted all that out?
Secondly, is the money new money or simply the usual recycled announcement of funds from last year's comprehensive spending review? Rather than the £131 million mentioned by the Prime Minister, and just now by the Minister, is not the amount allocated for neighbourhood management and neighbourhood managers really £45 million spread over three years? How much will that translate into for each of the communities involved? How many communities will be involved? When will they receive it?
Who will the money be paid to? Will the regional development agencies have a role as the major distributors of urban regeneration grants? Will local authorities have a hand in the determination of funds? If so, will communities genuinely be empowered—as the Prime Minister claimed—to control and shape their own destiny?
What will be the role of the Department of Trade and Industry? The Secretary of State seemed rather keen to muscle in on the act this morning. We are delighted to see him in the Chamber now.
What exactly will neighbourhood managers do? How are they different from neighbourhood wardens? Will they be there simply to manage neighbourhood wardens? Who will appoint them? On the basis of what criteria will they be appointed, and to whom will they be accountable? This morning, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not seem to know the answers to those questions. How exactly will neighbourhood managers interface with local authorities?
Thirdly, is it not gross opportunism to announce the scheme now, just weeks before a general election? Is it not really little more than yet another gimmick that barely rectifies the record of a Government who have presided over a widening north-south divide and a widening poverty gap—the extent of which have been clarified with publication today of the third "Wealth of Nations" report showing that 60 per cent. of households in centres such as Liverpool, Bradford, Blackburn and Middlesbrough are earning less than £10,000 annually per household?
Have not the Government presided over a decrease of 35 per cent. in the amount of new social housing built, and an increase of 74 per cent. in the number of people in temporary accommodation? Moreover, against the background of 190,000 extra crimes committed last year, has not crime in inner cities increased most of all—up by 12.6 per cent. in London, and 16 per cent. in the west midlands?
Does the statement go any way to satisfying any of the remaining 91 recommendations of the Rogers report which were not dealt with in the earlier urban White Paper? Does the statement restore a single one of the

2,600 police officers who are no longer present to patrol the streets in deprived communities? Will the right hon. Lady admit that neighbourhood wardens are no substitute for properly trained bobbies on the beat? Will she confirm that one of the more fatuous pledges in her announcement, namely, that by 2005 no area should have a burglary rate of three times the national average, can be achieved simply by raising that average?
Does the statement restore a single one of the teachers who are leaving the profession in droves, demoralised by form-filling, bureaucracy and political correctness? Does it shorten by one single day the waiting times that people in inner cities must suffer to obtain urgent treatment in hospitals, if they are lucky enough to graduate from the waiting list for the waiting list?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, why are the Government again palming us off with gimmicks when they could be spending the money on more police, more teachers or more operations? Like people elsewhere, people in inner cities have paid the taxes, so when are they going to get the services?

Ms Armstrong: I had intended to thank the hon. Gentleman for not indulging in cynicism, but I am afraid that he moved in a cynical direction towards the end of his remarks.
Services in many of our deprived areas have been worsening for decades. The previous Government did nothing to arrest that process or to ensure that specific action was taken in those areas. Indeed, they engaged in rounds of cuts year after year before the last election. We are giving ourselves tough targets on all of the key services and have worked with people from communities throughout the county on identifying those services and the aspects that need to be improved; that has been an intensive activity over the past two years.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) seems yet again to want a top-down approach in which the Government decide what is right without proper consultation or discussion and without piloting proposals with local communities. On money, he seems to think that Budgets and statements by Chancellors do not matter and that we can suddenly resurrect money from an unidentifiable pot of gold. Yes, the money was announced in the public spending round last July, but it has not previously been allocated and we have been working 'with local communities on deciding the most effective allocation. Our piloting of neighbourhood managers will involve 30 different areas in two rounds during the next three years. Many areas that benefit from the new deal for communities are already piloting or beginning to set up new forms of neighbourhood management. The 30 additional communities that will benefit from the piloting are all in the top 10 per cent. of the country's deprived wards.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether local authorities would be involved, but he seemed schizophrenic about the nature of such involvement. Of course they will be involved, as they are responsible for several of the key services that must be delivered more effectively in the areas in question. It is therefore important for them to act as partners with the local community, business, other public sector agencies and voluntary organisations. They will be partners in the local strategic partnerships and in drawing up priorities and plans for their deprived neighbourhoods.
Of course the DTI is involved. If we do not improve enterprise in these areas, their long-term sustainability will be reduced. The actions of the DTI on the minimum wage, for example, and its work with the Small Business Service are absolutely critical.
We shall not appoint the neighbourhood managers: they will be appointed locally. The appointments will come from whatever vehicle the local strategic partnerships decide to set up. Under the new deal for communities, many areas have already set up community trusts. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is really not interested in my answer, is he? Several areas are setting up community trusts that will appoint a neighbourhood manager. In other areas, the appointments will be carried out in a different way by people in those areas, who will decide the most effective way of acting.
Conservative Members clearly have severe problems in understanding that one cannot dictate everything centrally while expecting local people to trust that their involvement will matter. We are determined to show that that will be the key.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Burnley is a deprived area? We certainly welcome the statement, and Burnley has a record of seizing any opportunity given by a Government, although we were given few by the Tory Government during their 18 years of responsibility for the problem. Several community groups in Burnley—particularly south-west Burnley—will already be considering how to meet the challenge that the Minister has proposed for community groups to receive this funding.
May I spell out one problem for my right hon. Friend? When we involve community groups and build up their hopes, there is always a danger that those people's hopes will be dashed and that they will get depressed if sufficient money is not then available. Can we have an assurance that the money will be available, and that these people will get the go-ahead and be able to tackle the kind of problems to which my right hon. Friend has referred?

Ms Armstrong: Burnley is one of the authorities that will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund, to the tune of £2.5 million over the next three years. It will also be able to access the other funds that I have announced this afternoon. Given the increased investment announced by the Chancellor, as long as the authority focuses on ways of reducing crime and unemployment, of improving health, and so on—although there will never be enough money and everyone will always want more—I am confident that the increase will be able to satisfy the aspirations of people in Burnley.

Mr. Don Foster: I welcome, as I have on two previous occasions, the broad principle of today's statement. The Minister has acknowledged that, with the exception of the £35 million for the community empowerment scheme, there is no announcement of new money. Will she at least confirm that the targets for crime reduction, education and health that she has announced today are absolutely identical to those that the Government announced on 10 September?
Will the Minister also tell the House why it has taken the Labour party 18 years in opposition and three and a half years in government to discover what many people

have known for all that time and longer—namely that the people who live with particular problems are the ones who are best placed, with support, to find the solutions to them?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her announcement of, for example, a community chest, neighbourhood management and community empowerment schemes adds yet more bureaucratic schemes to the large number that already exists? So bureaucratic are some of those schemes that people have difficulty finding their way through them, and much of the funding announced by the Government to help those most in need of it has ended up being underspent.
On underspending, will the Minister acknowledge that, although there is to be £100 million for the neighbourhood renewal fund, the first time the Chancellor announced that, he did not announce—although the figures clearly demonstrate—that in the same financial year, £160 million was to be cut from the budget for the new deal for communities? That money was intended specifically for the same target group.

Ms Armstrong: The new money announced today—or the new allocation of money—is £50 million for the community chest over the next three years; £35 million for the community empowerment fund over the next three years; and money to support other community activities. Overall, there is £130 million.
It has not taken us so long to find out that the people living in an area are those best placed to turn it round. It is precisely because we have been working with people that the strategy is being announced today, rather than on the first day after the general election. We were working with people to develop the strategy, because we did not think that we could say, "We know best, and you'll do what we tell you."
The hon. Gentleman said that the new system would be more bureaucratic. I disagree. The local strategic partnership will allow all the other partnerships to come together in discussion and debate with others, and find the most effective way of meeting their targets. By bringing things together we can reduce bureaucracy.
Of course there has been underspend in some programmes, precisely because we were working with communities over a longer time. For example, the new deal for communities pathfinder in Birmingham needed another year to put its proposals together, so we gave it another year. That meant that it did not spend the money that would otherwise have been available. Taking the opportunity to work with people sometimes means that money is not spent at exactly the expected time.

Fiona Mactaggart: Like many Labour Members, I welcome the statement—but I am upset that it does not extend to my constituency. The index of deprivation 2000 rates Slough as only the 107th most deprived area, but all other indices of deprivation put Slough much higher. We are among the top 20 boroughs in the country for burglary. We have very high levels of deaths from heart attacks and heart disease. One in three children entering Slough schools has English as an additional language.
I am particularly concerned that the new deprivation index does not account sufficiently for pockets of deprivation among ethnic minority communities.
Eighty per cent. of Pakistanis in Slough earn less than £10,000 a year. Will the Minister please reconsider the way in which boroughs with large ethnic minority populations are treated under the deprivation index, because it does not accurately reflect the needs of the community that I represent?

Ms Armstrong: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns; she is constantly seeking to increase opportunities for people in Slough—and so she should. However, 70 per cent. of this country's ethnic minority population live in the 10 per cent. of wards that are most deprived. That is reflected in the new index, so my hon. Friend can see that it takes account of people from ethnic minorities. I assure her that we want to improve the available data all the time. Indeed, the comprehensive spending review put money into the Office for National Statistics to improve data collection and availability not only at ward level but at remuneration by district level. That is important not only for those of us who administer programmes but for local people, who should have proper access to information about what is really going on in their neighbourhoods—and that is what we seek to provide over the next three years.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the sense of outrage in Essex when people learned that, of the £800 million announced by the Government, not a penny was to go to anywhere in Essex—apart from Dagenham—even areas where there are substantial problems, such as Basildon, Tilbury and Southend-on-Sea? Is the Minister aware that unemployment there is well above average and that there are many social problems, as seen from the concentration of bed-and-breakfasts and houses in multiple occupation? Is she also aware of the concentration of elderly people? Will she ask the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), about the situation regarding asylum seekers? In Southend, we have a nightmare of a problem, which places a big strain on public services?
Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable anger that Southend is not getting a penny? I was told this morning that Southend's problem could be its above-average results for education—that is not a problem for us; we are delighted with it—and that we have an effective Conservative council that avoids the shambles we have seen in other areas. Is the Minister willing to look again at the criteria, because the present situation is not fair to Essex and not fair to Southend?

Ms Armstrong: We had to take difficult decisions about what were the poorest areas. We did so according to very clear criteria which we have published in "Indices of Deprivation 2000", and I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at them.
I know that Southend is seeking to tackle its problems. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited recently to announce a very generous transport settlement. As he also knows, Southend is doing quite well out of the local government settlement. I want to ensure that Southend is using its mainstream money effectively. This statement is not just about money but about how we work with areas

that have problems to make sure that the mainstream money works effectively. I am sure that Southend will be seeking to do that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me—most unusually, perhaps—that this statement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and by Thurrock borough council? The proposals that she has announced fit in very well with the borough's new structures to enable and empower neighbourhoods. I speak for Tilbury, not for Southend, and I hope that the lion. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will bear that in mind.
We welcome this document because it is a little bit of socialism, if I dare use the word. It targets the most deprived areas so that they get much more than they would get in blanket grants.
The paper refers to the co-operation of a number of agencies, particularly the police. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not allow the chief constable of Essex police to be tardy and hold back on this matter? We find the least policing in our areas of greatest poverty. The local authority and local community might be lined up on this, but unless we can get the co-operation of the chief constable in recognising that deprived areas such as Tilbury need greater policing, we will be frustrated in our attempts to fulfil the radical and progressive objectives that my right hon. Friend has outlined this afternoon, particularly for my community in Thurrock and Tilbury.

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend's authority, although it does not receive a neighbourhood renewal fund, none the less has at least two wards which are suffering from deprivation and are among the 10 per cent. worst in the country, which mewls that it will be eligible for the neighbourhood management pilots and for some of the other money.
More than anything else, this strategy is a means by which local communities can come together to work out what the local priorities are and how to tackle them locally. The police will have targets. Whatever the chief constable feels about other matters, he will be seeking to ensure that the outcomes that every community has the right to expect are delivered in his area.

Mr. David Curry: I have rarely heard such a blubber-laden statement, even by the prolix standards of the Labour Government. Does the Minister agree that she spends too much time emphasising exam results in secondary schools and not enough time identifying the real problems in primary schools? In those areas, many primary schools are not failing, quite; are not in special measures, quite; and are not in an education action zone. They thus receive no help from the Government at all, and are finding things immensely tough. What measures does the right hon. Lady propose to give head teachers to enable them to fire bad teachers and to reward and thereby retain good teachers who could easily leave to work in a much more pleasant neighbourhood for the same money?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there has been significant investment in primary schools. No primary school has failed to benefit from that additional money. Every primary school has received


significant additional money and has been engaged in raising attainment at key stages 1 and 2. In the most deprived areas, 44 of the 88 most deprived authorities have achieved the greatest rise in attainment at key stage 2 in numeracy. That is a real testament to primary school heads and teachers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support them in meeting those targets everywhere.

Ms Hazel Blears: I warmly welcome the report and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to regeneration issues. That is in complete contrast to Conservative policies which, in their 18 years in government, led to mass unemployment, wrote off inner-city communities and caused a doubling of crime.
As a result of the rundown of inner-city areas, one of the most difficult matters is to engage local people in regeneration initiatives. My right hon. Friend is aware that in Salford several initiatives are under way, but one of the most difficult things is to get local people to have the confidence to take part in decision making. That is why the community empowerment fund will be crucial in encouraging people to come forward. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fund will support existing initiatives, as well as the new neighbourhood management initiatives? I fundamentally believe that we all need to learn from each other's experience of the whole range of initiatives; the community empowerment fund could be a mechanism that enables us to do that.

Ms Armstrong: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's dogged determination in her own constituency and to the way in which she works directly with community groups in some of the regeneration areas in Salford. Over the next three years, Salford will benefit by almost £11 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund. That shows the degree of deprivation in the city and the work that is to be done. I assure my hon. Friend that the community empowerment fund will ensure that local groups—local people—can be full partners, so that their voice can be heard whether the programmes are existing or new. Local people will be able to play their part; they will be equal partners, along with the local authority, the police authority, the health authority and business. Local people have their part to play; the programmes cannot be achieved without them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that any interest in the more deprived communities—many of which were Labour heartlands, but are so no longer—will be most welcome. Do her comments about neighbourhood managers mean that local residents, and not other agencies, will appoint—and sack, if need be—such managers?
Will the right hon. Lady look positively at the fact that, as London is the only part of the United Kingdom where there is not even a power to set up parish or community government, if people want to set up such government, they should be allowed to do so? In combination with the Homes Bill, which is also welcome, will these measures mean an end to the politically correct system of allocating housing? That system broke up communities, separating people from their families, from carers and from their children's nursery places. Families should be allowed to live near each other—if they want to do so—where they can be mutually supportive, and not thrown to the four

winds, where they have suffered; as many academics and politicians agree, communities have been broken up over the past 50 years.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman's constituency is in the London borough of Southwark, which over the next three years will benefit to the tune of nearly £16 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund. Local residents will be involved in appointing the neighbourhood manager and will determine the framework for that. Some may decide to do it through a community trust. It is not up to us to establish the local framework. The local community must determine the employer, accountable body and so on.
The Homes Bill aims to change the way in which homeless people are accounted for. As a result of the response to the housing Green Paper, we have signalled a change in allocations policy.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I very much welcome the Minister's statement, especially in the context of the economic regeneration that is under way. I anticipate that Liverpool, where eight of the 20th poorest postcode areas are to be found, will benefit. What powers will be given to the strategic partnerships or their nominees to ensure that co-ordination of existing initiatives takes place and that Departments react constructively to what is happening locally? What role does my right hon. Friend see for local government, with its renewed powers in relation to environmental and economic well-being?

Ms Armstrong: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the initiative. She is right: Liverpool has some of the most deprived people in the country. They will benefit by receiving more than £40 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund in the next three years, in addition to mainstream funding. We need to be sure that that money works effectively. It is therefore important to have co-ordination at local, regional and national levels, and that is precisely what the strategy sets out to achieve.
The local strategic partnership will work with regional government offices and central Government to ensure that barriers to effective co-ordination are removed. The negotiation of work between central and local government will also help to ensure that that happens. By having the right levers at local level, local people will be able to make a difference and bridge the gap between poorer and richer areas.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the Minister aware that if we are going to have daily ministerial electioneering statements, I shall pray nightly and fervently to the Almighty for an early general election to release us from our sufferings? Of course there is cynicism, here and elsewhere: if the Government cannot even deliver on the five early promises contained in pledge cards at the previous general election, how on earth does the right hon. Lady expect to persuade people in the inner cities that she is going to build the new Jerusalem, starting tomorrow?

Ms Armstrong: We cannot win, can we? Some Tories accuse us of not announcing the strategy early enough and others accuse us of producing a last-minute election ploy. Today's statement is a result of sustained work over the past


two and a half years, within government and between central and local government and the Government and local people. That is why we have made a statement today.
Thousands of people took part in an extensive consultation. We have assessed and evaluated that consultation and the results are before us today. I suspect that if we had not laid them before the House, the hon. Gentleman would be raising points of order and complaining. This is a significant move. We are admitting past mistakes made by Labour Governments and by Governments of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. Governments have too often been part of the problem. We have to change that and ensure that they work effectively with people so that everyone benefits from this country's growing prosperity.

Ms Karen Buck: Until recently, the Lisson Green estate in the Conservative-controlled borough of Westminster was the model of how not to do urban regeneration. Some £50 million was spent on hugely mismanaged building works, with no consideration given to crime prevention, the community or economic development. I am glad to say that the corner is now being turned, with an education action zone, a sure start scheme and the opening last week of the council-funded information technology access project, firststep.com.
Will my right hon. Friend give me a commitment that small areas of acute deprivation such as the Lisson Green estate in Church street will continue to benefit from Government initiatives even though they are located in the midst of areas of considerable prosperity, as is so often the case in London?

Ms Armstrong: As I said, this strategy is not just about money; it is about ways of working and making sure that mainstream money works effectively. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that some local authorities had money from mainstream funds but were not using it to target areas of deprivation in ways that gave people in those areas real opportunities. This strategy will make sure that that happens. Both the boroughs that my hon. Friend represents will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund, and I assure her that we will be watching carefully to make sure that councils target areas of deprivation. Initiatives such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend will continue to benefit small areas of deprivation in otherwise prosperous places. It is important that we tackle deprivation and give people opportunities wherever they live.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In her recycled, sustainable statement the Minister said that the measures outlined are designed to cut crime in deprived communities. Given that in such communities it is often the case that a high proportion of crimes are committed by a small number of dedicated criminals whom the courts allow out again and again instead of using their powers to put them away, will she explain how the measures will have any effect whatever on the level of crime in those communities?

Ms Armstrong: I did warn you, Mr. Speaker, that there would be some cynicism, and the hon. Gentleman

displays it by saying that nothing can be done. I simply do not accept that. The Government have already introduced significant legislative changes to enable local authorities and the police to take action against the very people about whom he is talking. Through the local crime and disorder partnerships and other methods, police and court activities are targeted at tackling problems locally. I am confident that that can happen, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so cynical that he believes that nothing can be done. He is obviously content that we will continue to have areas of social deprivation and he does not want to do anything about that.

Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the statement and wholeheartedly thank the Government for their work to deal with social exclusion, to reduce the poverty gap, to deal with ill health and to improve education. What work has been done to help people in Stoke-on-Trent where, far from there being one area of deprivation, 80 per cent. of people live in wards where there is 25 per cent. poverty among children? Will the programme that my right hon. Friend has announced enable whole areas of cities to be targeted?

Ms Armstrong: The programme is specifically for the most deprived areas. Stoke-on-Trent will benefit to the tune of £8 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund over the next three years. The Government are targeting the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises. She will know that we have a target to eliminate child poverty within 20 years. Our mainstream policies of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, with the increase in child benefit, will benefit all those in her area who have not in the past received the help and support that they ought to have received.
The programme will particularly enable such people to get involved in other things that are needed to turn their area around, so that there are more job opportunities and they acquire the necessary skills and qualifications for better jobs. It will also tackle inequalities in health, crime and so on. Along with other mainstream policies, the programme will make a real difference to people's lives in Stoke-on-Trent.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady share with the House the reason why the statement is being made today although, as she has admitted, the money was announced as part of the public spending review, and the Select Committee reports on urban and rural renewal are due for discussion on Friday next week? She talks about whole neighbourhoods, but how will the policies adapt to and tackle pockets of urban deprivation? Is she saying that such policies are needed because all the partners to whom she referred woefully let down little Anna from Haringey?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Lady asks why the statement is being made today. As I have said several times, it is not just about money. It is about how that money will be spent effectively and what can happen locally and nationally in order to ensure that programmes are targeted effectively and have effective outcomes. We are able to make the statement today because we have completed work with those around the country who have been involved in consultation and policy action teams.
Of course the strategy can be used to tackle pockets of deprivation. We have acknowledged in the index that there are such pockets, which the previous Government seemed never to want to do. We know that we must do that and that the data are not sufficiently good to enable us to do so effectively. We continue to work on the data but none the less have a strategy that enables every community to consider what can be done to help to turn things around.

Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome the commitment of the Government and my right hon. Friend to neighbourhood renewal. My right hon. Friend will know that Birmingham not only has a new deal for communities pathfinder initiative, but is to receive £44 million under the neighbourhood renewal fund.
May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of pockets of deprivation? Although I appreciate the work that she and her Department are doing on improving data, a problem remains if they are based on ward indices and there are areas of deprivation alongside areas of affluence in a ward. In allocating moneys such as the neighbourhood renewal fund, will she urge local authorities and other accountable bodies to try to target below ward level in order to address that problem?

Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. In fact, Birmingham has two new deal for communities areas and will benefit by more than £44 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund in the next three years. I agree with my hon. Friend about The quality of data. At the moment, we are working hard to amass effective data at ward level. That has been difficult; it was part of the reason for the new index. We invested money through the 2000 spending review to try to collect good data on remuneration at district level, data from across the range of public services and information from other important aspects in order to find out what is going on and what priorities should be. Obviously this year's census will help us to do that. In future, the Office for National Statistics will perform that task.

Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend, who, I am delighted to say, knows my constituency very well. I wish to draw her attention to Thornaby and Parkfield, which face a problem of unemployment that is considerably worse than the national average, as well as problems of drugs, alcohol and crime which seriously debilitate the community. In addition, the local authority is attempting to find £132 million to repair its council properties—a debt left by the previous Administration. Is Stockton to be included in the urban regeneration package? In particular, are Thornaby and Parkfield, which are areas of serious deprivation, to be included?

Ms Armstrong: I can assure my hon. Friend that Stockton will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund to the tune of £7.7 million in the next three years, and I am confident that the Thornaby and Parkfield wards will be covered. The problems that she mentioned, especially drugs, are scourges that tear the heart out of many communities—hence the importance of the drugs strategy and the work done by my colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Health.
The strategy sets clear targets for housing improvement. I think that it states that one third of the houses that have not been improved should be improved within three years, and that all houses should be fit and improved within 10 years. The Government have put in the money to back up those commitments. Now, we shall work with local people to ensure that we meet those targets.

Mr. John Cryer: To return to the question of pockets of deprivation, I have in my constituency, which is relatively prosperous, several small areas of deprivation, one of which is the Mardyke estate, in which there are high levels of crime, very high levels of anti-social behaviour, and families facing real difficulties. However, the figures for such areas do not register under the criteria mentioned today, because they are surrounded by areas of relative prosperity. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the data book, and will she give sympathetic consideration to the joint bid from Havering council and the local police for a neighbourhood warden scheme that would cover the Mardyke estate and other areas?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to say that overall levels of deprivation in Havering do not warrant its inclusion in the 88 authorities. However, as I keep saying, the programme is not only about money; it is about providing a toolkit for local communities, local authorities and other public agencies to use to turn areas around. I am sure that Havering will seek to do that in line with mainstream programmes, and I shall be more than happy to discuss with my hon. Friend how we might meet some of his objectives.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I welcome the announcement. If my understanding is correct, both Thanet and Dover are eligible to apply for neighbourhood management pilot status. If that is so, I am even more grateful for the statement. However, will my right hon. Friend explain what she means when she says that neighbourhood managers will have clout? We in Thanet have a regeneration board, a district council, a county council and involvement in the regional development agency. If the neighbourhood manager is to achieve anything he or she must be able to take decisions and get them implemented. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that neighbourhood managers are granted the power to implement decisions?

Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that Thanet and Dover will be eligible to apply for neighbourhood management pilots. We will work at Government office level with the local strategic partnerships to make sure that they can draw in all the public sector agencies, from the Employment Service and the Department of Social Security to the local housing authority, the health authority and so on. All those agencies have a part to play and we shall work to co-ordinate things at local level to ensure that that happens. Local people will have information about what is going on, and will have an opportunity to be involved. They will also make demands that need a response. I believe that we will have a structure that will ensure a response because people will know that their jobs are on the line.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know only too clearly that many


coastal towns around the country are in the most deprived areas. Along with Labour colleagues who represent those resorts and communities, I welcome very much the Government's approach in the report. Will my right hon. Friend say specifically whether Scarborough and Whitby, especially the communities of Eastfield and Barrowclough in Scarborough and Streonshalh in Whitby, will have an opportunity to participate in the urban renewal project?

Ms Armstrong: I know my hon. Friend's constituency well and I know the real problems faced by many seaside towns in this country. We have sought to target them specifically in the comprehensive spending review, and, although I do not have the names of Scarborough wards that are eligible, I can tell my hon. Friend that, as an authority, Scarborough has at least two wards on the index which will be able to apply for the neighbourhood management pilots.

Mr. Hilary Benn: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the last thing that my constituents who live in areas scarred by poverty need is cynicism? There is a lot of cynicism about, which is why I welcome her announcement, which combines a financial helping hand with the philosophy of self-help. Will she tell the House how the progress of the initiatives will be measured? In particular, how will my constituents in places like Halton Moor, Osmondthorpe, Holbeck, Cottlingley, Little London and Lincoln Green be able to see for themselves what difference her announcements today have made to their lives?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right: those communities need to know that we believe and trust them. That is very important, and cynicism from this place undermines their confidence in themselves and in those who work with them. As my hon. Friend knows, I visited his constituency and know of the poverty there. However, I am also aware that economically, Leeds is a fast-growing city overall. None the less, we are making available to Leeds in the next three years nearly £17 million for neighbourhood renewal. I assure my hon. Friend that we will make sure that that money is used effectively and that local people can measure what is going on. The statistics will be published much more frequently each year, and people will know what is going on and will be able to hold the public agencies to account for the way in which they are spending their money and for the outcomes of that spending.

Tax Simplification (Joint Committee)

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
That the following Standing Order be made—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of seven Members, to join with the committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
(2) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(3) The quorum of the Committee shall be two.
(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(5) The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House when such procedure differs from that of select committees of the House of Lords.
(6) The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee under paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees).

In moving the first motion, I should like to explain briefly to the House the procedure for a Joint Committee to be set up to consider tax simplification Bills. The House has already agreed in principle that it is expedient for such a Committee to be established, and agreement to two motions on the Order Paper, this being the first, is the next step in that process.
The first of those Bills—the Capital Allowances Bill—was introduced on 9 January. The procedure for them has been refined over the past four years to recognise their particular nature while providing for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation. The procedure draws on that for the consolidation Bills. The tax simplification Bills are not consolidation Bills, but have a lot in common with them. Their purpose is to rewrite the law so that it is clearer and more easily understood, but they will also make minor changes in the law, just as a consolidation Bill may contain minor changes giving effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission. The importance of providing proper parliamentary scrutiny of the rewritten legislation was recognised from the outset.
The motion provides for detailed scrutiny of the Bill, including what are very minor and largely technical changes to be undertaken by a Joint Committee, and is in the form of a Standing Order as there will be a series of tax simplification Bills. The second will, on current plans, be ready to be introduced in autumn 2002. Making a Standing Order will mean that the House will avoid the need to go through the process again. That, again, was envisaged in the original Procedure Committee report to the House in 1997.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the proposed Joint Committee meet in private or in public and can the Minister offer me any encouragement to believe that the


said Committee will be mercifully free among its members from representatives of either the Government or the Opposition Whips Office?

Dawn Primarolo: I was about to explain the procedure for the Select Committee. I hope to address the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but, if I do not, I shall of course give way to him.
The Committee to be established is a Select Committee, not a Standing Committee. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) knows, Select Committees are free to determine how and when they meet and whether to do so in open or closed session. The Select Committee will be free to proceed by taking evidence and informal deliberation as well as by proposing formal amendments to the Bill. The Procedure Committee recommended that
the greatest possible latitude be permitted to the committee in its terms of reference …
That is what we have tried to achieve. The Procedure Committee, in 1997, also recommended that a Minister should sit on the Joint Committee. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that, should the House agree another motion on the Order Paper, I would be a member of that Committee.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister will understand the purport of my continuing inquiries. I note what she says, although I confess that I do so with some distaste that the Committee will include a Minister, but will she confirm that the said Minister will be regarded not as a witness before, but as a member of, the Committee? Will not it therefore be open to the Committee at a meeting attended by a ministerial member to judge that, lacking witnesses, it should choose to meet in private? Does she understand that, as a champion of freedom of information in those matters and one who is concerned about possible dastardly works that might be perpetrated by the Government, I am uneasy about such private confabs?

Dawn Primarolo: I understand, the hon. Gentleman's concern that the transparency of the process should be upheld. The Committee will be free to elect its Chairman and I understand that my role is to be an individual member of that Committee. It will be for the Committee to decide how to conduct its business—it would be quite improper for me to suggest from the Dispatch Box how it should do so—but I am sure that whoever is appointed to chair the Committee will of course scrutinise today's debates and pay particular attention to ensuring that the rights of the House are properly protected.

Mr. Bercow: What are these pigs that I see flying?

Dawn Primarolo: I could not possibly comment.
The Joint Committee is expected to have 13 members. Six will be from another place and seven from this place. The Procedure Committees of both Houses have recommended that the Chairman be drawn from this place.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the procedure which was set up under Standing Order and introduced by the Conservative Government prior to the 1997 election provided that the House should have the majority—seven members—on the Committee and that the Chairman should be drawn from one of those seven members. That recognises that the Bills

concern tax and would not normally be matters for another place, while bringing to bear the expertise of Members of the other place in the process of consideration. In the previous Parliament, the Procedure Committee stated:
It is likely that a joint committee would only be generally acceptable if it was clear that the Commons was in a sense the driving force.
The division of seven members from this place and six from another place reflects that desire.
Given that it is somewhat unusual to engage the expertise of Members of another place in the debate on tax measures, the proposal is that House of Commons procedures shall be followed where they differ from those in the other place. That is most significant in the role of the Chairman in voting. In the other place, the Chairman votes like any other member and has no casting vote in the event of a tie. In this place, the Chairman does not have a vote unless a tie occurs, when he or she has a casting vote.
Secondly, the Committee will have powers to take evidence, as I have said, from anyone it wishes and to appoint specialist advisers if it judges that helpful to supplement the lengthy consultation already undertaken by the rewrite project.
Thirdly, there were some questions about the Committee's ability to change the underlying tax law. I hope that the motion will make it clearer that the Committee's remit is to consider tax simplification Bills, not to review and revise underlying tax policy. That is consistent with the recommendations made to the House when the tax law rewrite project was set up and with the Procedure Committee's reports to the House.
The motion is simply about taking forward Bills which rewrite existing legislation, with some minor changes only. That is a matter on which I am pleased to find that there has so far been a great deal of agreement. The work undertaken by Lord Howe of Aberavon and his enthusiasm, along with all the other members of the tax law rewrite body, of which the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is one, has demonstrated both the commitment of the previous Government and of the present Government to take this important work forward.
The motion puts in place the machinery for delivering the first rewrite Bill after a great deal of effort over several years. I hope that the House will accept the procedures.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I support the proposal, but has no thought been given to making the quorum of the Committee not merely two, as proposed? Should not the higher proportion that is required in the House constitute the quorum?

Mr. Bercow: There is an amendment on that.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that sedentary interjection.
I served on the Joint Committee that is designed to reject defunct or obsolete Acts on the statute book. I felt vulnerable when I attended. It was almost as if I were trespassing on House of Lords proceedings, as it were. I was somewhat alone on that occasion, and I believe that it is unhealthy for the House not to ensure that the


deliberations of the Joint Committee are a mutual undertaking, rather than one that is not pursued with any great vigour by some hon. Members.

Dawn Primarolo: I understand my hon. Friend's point. All these matters were considered by the Procedure Committees of both Houses. The Select Committee has only seven members from this House, and it would be extraordinary for the quorum to include more than half of those members—hence, the number two as the proposed quorum.
The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has 12 members and a quorum of two, as does the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, where the number of members is not fixed by Standing Order, but is, I understand, currently seven.
The new procedure that has been agreed is laid down by Standing Order No. 60. As the process of tax law rewrite is taken through the House for the first time, it will be necessary to reconsider the procedure.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady has been exceptionally generous, which I much appreciate. Nevertheless, I am a little concerned by the progressively byzantine arrangement that she has set out before the House. She said a moment ago, if I understood her correctly, that the Chairman of the Joint Committee would have to come from this House. Is that because of something in Sessional or Standing Orders, or is it merely by way of a gentlemen's or ladies' agreement?
Furthermore, with reference to paragraph (2) of the motion, does the hon. Lady understand that many of us are rather perturbed by the idea that the Committee might conduct its secretive work when the House is adjourned? That seems to be a recipe for trouble.

Dawn Primarolo: First, I assure that hon. Gentleman that nothing in the deliberations on the tax law rewrite Bills will be concealed from the House. There must be a report back to the House, and it will be for the House to decide. Secondly, I remind him that the Government are in a minority on the Committee—a somewhat unusual position for the Government to be in on Committees.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: If I may answer one question at a time, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
There is no chance that, without a majority, the Government could railroad anything through the Committee, nor would we want to. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) scoffs. If he studied the subject, he would find that from its inception under the previous Government, the proposal had received widespread support in the House and huge support among all the professions, and that it has been the subject of extensive consultation. The procedure to review it and consider Bills in the House has now been properly arranged.
On the question of the Chair of the Committee, it would be improper for me to express any view. It will be for the Committee to elect its Chair.
I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), even though I have concluded my remarks.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. She said that Government members on the Committee would be in a minority. As four out of seven members listed on the Order Paper are from the Government side, it follows that she knows who the other six from the Lords are. If she does, will she please tell the House, and if she does not, can she tell the House when they will be appointed or when their lordships will deliberate on the matter? With regard to the quorum, does the quorum of two bind only Members of this House, or does it bind the entire Committee, including Members of the other House?

Dawn Primarolo: The House of Lords returns from its break today, and it will appoint its members of the Committee. If we are notified during our debates that those appointments have been confirmed by the other place, I shall be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman. It is for the other place to determine who its six members will be.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not want to get at the Minister, but her statement that Government Members will be in a minority on the Committee cannot be correct, because she does not know what its total membership will be.

Dawn Primarolo: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking who the members from the other place will be. The breakdown of those six members will be two Labour, two Conservative, one Cross Bencher and one Liberal Democrat. It is not for me to determine which peers will be members: that is a matter for the House of Lords. The Joint Committee will follow the procedure and rules of Select Committees of this House.

Mr. John Burnett: Is it the Government's intention that they will be in a minority for the duration of the Committee?

Dawn Primarolo: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking. The procedure is laid down in Standing Order No. 60. The requirement is for the seven members of the Committee to reflect the balance in this House, but when the six members from the other place have been added the Government will be in a minority—not a majority.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the quorum. A quorum of two is what Lords Committees use. The procedure was set out in proposals from the Committee in the Lords on 13 November 2000. The quorum, the procedure, and the fact that the Select Committee procedure for the Commons will be followed because tax questions are involved have now all been agreed by both Houses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should make it clear to the House that Mr. Speaker has not been able to accept any of the amendments.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I had a couple of points to make, but they have been made more effectively than I could by my hon. Friends in their perceptive interventions. We will be feeling our way in this new process. It is the first time that we have gone through it. I have listened to the points that my hon. Friends have made, and will bear them in mind. I shall certainly advocate that we sit in public, and that there is as much openness in the process as possible. I hope that the Minister will accept that, as it is the first time we will have gone through the process, it will be appropriate to review it at the end. If we feel that the process has not worked properly, it would he thoroughly appropriate for the House to reconsider this Standing Order and make the necessary amendments.
We met to discuss this matter on 19 December. We agreed the motion in principle, and we do so now.

Mr. John Burnett: The Joint Committee on Tax Simplification will be important and influential. Some eminent right hon. and hon. Members have proposed to go on the Committee, and I believe that it is wrong for the quorum to be just two Members of this House. There will not be a sufficient representative sample of the House, and the Committee may well be called on to deliberate and produce a report with the views and considerations of only one political party being represented. That is not acceptable. The quorum of the Committee should be at least four. Although I appreciate that, with a quorum of four, the Committee could still sit with only Government Members present, the amendment that has not been called would have provided at least the likelihood of diversity.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Would it not be sensible for the quorum to be at least two Members of each House, given that this will be a Joint Committee?

Mr. Burnett: I entirely agree, and I see no reason why the quorum of four suggested in the amendment that was not selected could not have been so comprised. Such an arrangement might provide even more diversity, and even more expertise.

Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if this is to be a highly important, extremely influential and very worthwhile Committee composed of celebrated members with many commitments and full diaries, there is no good reason why at any one time 11 of the 13 should be unavailable to fulfil their important duties? Is it not alarming that if on some occasion only two members were present, one of them, the non-voting Chairman, a single individual, could determine the Committee's proceedings?

Mr. Burnett: I must confess that my knowledge of Committee procedures is not quite as extensive as the hon. Gentleman's. Nevertheless, the central point must be made that the quorum should be at least four. I hope that the Government will reconsider; this is a most worthwhile project.

Dawn Primarolo: I think the hon. Gentleman said that the quorum should be at least four, counting Members of

the other place. Two Members of the other place plus two Members of the House of Commons make four, and that is the quorum. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem.

Mr. Burnett: Is the Paymaster General saying that, for the Committee to sit, the quorum must be in effect four—two Members of this House and two Members of the other place—and that if four such Members are not present there will be no quorum?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes: I am referring to two Members of each House. When the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I said that the quorum for the House of Lords would also be two. Furthermore, I said that a quorum of more than two for a Committee consisting of seven members would be unheard of.

Mr. Burnett: Actually, I am somewhat reassured by that.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is by nature a decent and generous fellow, but I hope he will not be too readily reassured. He should not jump ahead of himself. Does he not accept that what we have just heard from the Paymaster General, welcome though it sounds, is effectively amendment on the hoof—amendment at the Dispatch Box? Subsection (3) of the motion specifically states:
The quorum of the Committee shall be two.
It does not say "two Members of each House"; it just says "two".

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to that.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Mr. Burnett: The Paymaster General is poised to intervene. I happily allow her to do so.

Dawn Primarolo: We are discussing only procedure relating to this House, but the hon. Gentleman will note from the record that when I replied to him earlier I said that the quorum for the House of Lords Committee would also be two, and that the procedure had been set out in a proposal from that Committee on 13 November 2000.

Mr. Burnett: There is but one Committee, which consists of Members of both this House and the other place. That Committee will not be able to go about its business unless four individuals are present—for instance, two Members of each House. On that basis, I am reasonably reassured.

Mr. Michael Jack: Our exchanges about the quorum illustrate one of the Committee's most important tasks—attention to detail. Its work will involve detailed scrutiny, in the context of the first parliamentary consideration of tax law simplification.
Let me say at the outset that I welcome the progress that the House is making now in establishing the procedures—the substance will be established later—


of an exercise with which, as the Paymaster General suggested, I was closely associated during my time at the Treasury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) feared that the Committee's procedure might be clothed in secrecy. He is a modern Member of the House of Commons. If he had cared to look at the various internet websites on the tax law rewrite exercise, he would have found displayed to public view in the most open way possible all the proceedings so far of the exercise. It has been conducted in the most open of fashions.

Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend is an e-man of some note, but for those of us who do not possess a computer, who cannot switch one on, or who would not know a website if it jumped out of their breakfast cereal, to say that something is on a website is simply not sufficient. Those of us who are traditionalists and who prefer to deal with information in a proper way, conducted through a proper medium, will continue to insist on that. My right hon. Friend's talk of a website does not impress us all.

Mr. Jack: I was going to point out that conventional means are also being used to disseminate the information. When we debate that and other matters, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will refer to the copies, in a more conventional sense, of Committee proceedings that he will have obtained, with reference later perhaps to the many exposure drafts and other information that has been more conventionally produced and that will also assist the Committee in its work. If the shelf in my office that holds much of the printed material is anything to judge by, there has been a flood of information in the public domain on all aspects of the work that the Committee will examine.

Mr. Bercow: I confess that, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), on the whole I tend to prefer to communicate via use of the quill pen, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said in seeking to reassure me that the record of the proceedings was lodged on not one, but a multiplicity of websites. Is he saying that the verbatim account of everything said was lodged on said website, or is it merely a truncated version in the form of minutes? The former would be substantially reassuring, the latter less so.

Mr. Jack: If my hon. Friend were fully acquainted with and had read all the material from all the participants during all parts of the exercise that has produced the Bill that we shall discuss later, he perhaps would not have posed the question in quite the way that he did because it is the output and decisions of the consultative and steering committee processes that are of greater interest in the public domain than the words uttered both privately and publicly to determine what we will discuss later.
The first part of the motion deals with a Standing Order. The motion says that we wish
to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.

That is the most positive part of the tax law rewrite exercise, but one of the challenges will be the considerable amount of detail that the Committee will have to go into in determining the answer, almost, to the question in the first part of the motion.
I was interested in a paragraph in the helpful Library note which gives some of the background to the exercise. It says on page 39:
Experience with the Joint Committee on Consolidation suggests that the Lords Members play a dominant part and that there are indeed frequent problems with ensuring sufficient attendance of Commons Members to provide the quorum.
It is interesting that later we may be able to debate the membership from this House of the Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have volunteered their services, or whose services have been volunteered, to that exercise will have the time to carry out the part of the motion that I read out earlier. It is a time-consuming exercise. Given that it will be the first parliamentary consideration of the rewrite process, assiduous attention to detail will be required to meet the understandable questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have posed and to give the reassurance that the matter has been properly considered.
The second paragraph of the motion states:
The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House—
and more important—
to report from time to firm, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
I am intrigued by that provision. I should also like to ask the Paymaster General about it, as that might refresh my memory of the procedures considered by the Procedure Committee in recommending that method of considering the Capital Allowances Bill. One of the matters that we shall discuss in more detail later is how the whole exercise has helped us to arrive at the conclusions in the Bill. The exercise has had two parts, the first of which deals with ideas to improve tax law but without changing current policy. The second part deals with ideas that go beyond that stricture in relation to current policy and addresses the simplification issue in the round.
Does the Paymaster General envisage that, in the reports that it might produce, the Select Committee will be able to go wider than the narrow confines of commenting on the fruits of the labour done by both the consultative and steering committees on the Capital Allowances Bill? I am sure that the specialist advisers who will wish to advise the Select Committee will have views on some of the implications of the Bill's drafting.
As for the tax law rewrite exercise, it might be quite interesting if the reports could go a little further than simply commenting on drafting. Nevertheless, even if they comment only on drafting, such reports could be interesting when we come to subsequent rewrite Bills. Will the Select Committee have to restrict its remarks solely to the Capital Allowances Bill? If not, will it be able to comment on more general matters? Such an ability could be valuable in other aspects of the exercise.
Some of the Bill's provisions beg the question how effectively current tax law operates. Will the Select Committee be able to call for an economic assessment of some aspects of capital allowances legislation and to


report on the operation of both current and redefined law? Such reports might be useful adjuncts to the Select Committee's work in commenting on tax simplification.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that paragraph (2) of the motion is a standard provision in motions establishing all Committees and that it is just so much hogwash? The Committee, even with the benefit of paragraph (2), will not be able to ask for the advice given to Ministers. Therefore, requests for all the really important information that the Committee might wish to know could well be refused by Ministers—even by the Minister dealing with the Capital Allowances Bill. Can that Minister be called before the Committee to give evidence?

Mr. Jack: As the relevant Minister will be part of the Select Committee, she will be able to contribute to its proceedings in her own way.
As for my hon. Friend's point on advice to Ministers, it is true that documentation that moved between Revenue officials and Treasury officials when I was a Treasury Minister would not be available to Ministers now. I would also not expect Select Committees to be able to gain access to information on the policy issues discussed by officials. However, in relation to the consultative committee's work and the number of exposure drafts that have preceded the Bill, the Bill has been written in such a transparent manner that the exercise itself has been very transparent.
If my hon. Friend wishes to avail himself of the available information, like the Select Committee he will have to conduct a comparative exercise between the "old" Bill and the "new" one. Then he will be aware of precisely the issues that would have been before Ministers. I recommend, however, that he conducts such an exercise only if he is an insomniac. Assuming that he wants to remain sane and normal, as he usually is, I remind him that he would be embarking on an extremely complex and difficult task—a remark that I shall repeat during the wider debate on tax simplification, if I have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Bercow: Hot wet towels.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is correct, although the towels will have gone stony cold by the time such an exercise is complete.
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for her clarification on quorums. As I said, the issue is an interesting insight into the points of detail that will be the stuff of the hon. Members who comprise the Joint Committee. I welcome the original proposal on which the Procedure Committee deliberated and I wish the Joint Committee well. I hope that the House will approve the motion.

Mr. Eric Forth: I confess that I cannot join in the cosy unanimity that has so far been displayed. I am always suspicious when I am assured that everybody has been in agreement, not least when that assurance is given by Labour Members. Such statements always strike me as a recipe for sure disaster. Everybody will remember the agreement about the Child Support

Agency, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and many other measures that were brought to the House in a rush of consensual happiness, but which ended in universal tears. Might not the House now be considering another such measure?
When I see the words "tax" and "Lords" mentioned together in one motion, I become suspicious and wonder why we have all suffered from collective amnesia on the history of this place and on the relative roles of the Commons and the Lords, especially in respect of tax matters. The original Procedure Committee report of 27 January 1997 gave the lie to that. It states:
the Lords Procedure Committee has pronounced itself as content with the proposal for a Joint Committee.
It would, wouldn't it? The House of Lords has been trying for centuries to get its collective toes into tax matters.
The Procedure Committee went on to state that
the only evident drawback would be on the constitutional ground of whether it is appropriate for the Upper House to play any significant role in the consideration of bills relating to taxation.
It continued:
We do not, on balance, consider any such objection to be well founded.
The Committee conceded that a genuine judgment had to be made on whether it was appropriate for members of the other place to be involved in taxation matters at the current stage in our constitutional development.
Those recommendations set the tone that should have been reflected in the current debate. After reading them, I consulted "Erskine May", as one does on these occasions; indeed, I am sure that all hon. Members have done so. Under the interesting headings "Restrictions Under Constitutional Usage" and "Basis of modern practice with respect to privilege", page 797 of "Erskine May" reminds us that the original resolution relating to practice
in respect of the Commons' financial privileges
dates back to 1671. The resolution, which I have before me, therefore relates directly to the legitimacy of the role of the other place in taxation matters, which is precisely the substance of the motion. It states:
That, in all Aids given to the King, by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by the Lords.
As was the practice in those days, the resolution is written clearly and succinctly—would that such practices were followed now. Interestingly—I add this in passing—the record states:
And then the House adjourned till To-morrow Morning, Eight of the Clock.

Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend point out any specific words within the tax law rewrite exercise that give powers to those involved in the exercise to make the type of changes to which he has just referred?

Mr. Forth: I need not do that, because I referred only to the motion and I shall return to this matter later. The motion refers to the responsibilities of the Joint Committee
to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I read that wording as almost inviting the proposed Joint Committee—about which I am unhappy and do not share



the general approval so far expressed—to make minor but significant changes to tax law and possibly, therefore, to the burden of tax or to the rates of tax.

Mr. Jack: Has my right hon. Friend considered the before-and-after effect by reading the old law and the new law?

Mr. Forth: If I catch your eye in a subsequent debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to argue that dangerous scope for a stealth tax drift is built into the procedure, mechanism and wording of the proposal. However, I would not want to pre-empt that argument now.
Suffice it to say to my right hon. Friend that I am sufficiently unhappy that there is at least a danger that the mechanisms could alter the burden of tax, either inadvertently or deliberately—I know not which, yet; perhaps we shall consider that later.

Mr. Bercow: I appreciate the vantage point from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is approaching the subject. He thinks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has unjustified fears. However, would my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst care to entertain a scenario in which six members were present at a meeting of the Joint Committee, two of whom hailed from this House and four from the other place? Does he accept that, in those circumstances, decisions would effectively be made by noble Lords and that they could be decisions to which absentee members of the Committee subsequently declared themselves to be profoundly opposed?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has, as he often does, pre-empted an argument that I hope to make later on the quorum. I am going to work steadily and methodically through my many headings in this debate, and I have barely scratched the surface of the first.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me, but he has anticipated one of my anxieties. Not only does the motion give potentially equal say on tax matters to Members of another place but, as he pointed out, we could end up with Members of another place determining matters relating to tax by outnumbering Members of this House on the Committee. Later, I shall again quote the Procedure Committee on the matter because it has given the lie to the whole issue.
Undeterred, I shall press on. I shall be brief, as I am just setting the scene. "Erskine May" also helpfully draws our attention to a further resolution of 1678 entitled—or "intituled", as they used to say in the good old days—"Rights of Commons in granting Money". It states that it was resolved:
That all Aids and Supplies, and Aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole Gift of the Commons: And all Bills for the Granting of any such Aids and Supplies ought to begin with the Commons: And that it is the undoubted and sole Right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such grants; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of Lords.
The history of this argument is clear—or, at least, it was in the balmy days of 1678. "Erskine May" also states that:
the House adjourned until To-morrow Morning, Eight of the Clock.

Those were the good old days when the House did a proper day's work, unlike the abbreviated consideration that we have now.
A further reference that I wish to pray in aid is also drawn to our attention by "Erskine May". It dates from 1860—we are getting more up to date—and is headed Tax Bills:
The Order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Question proposed upon the 5th day of this instant July, That the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such Grants as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them.
I quote that to illustrate the constancy and consistency of the attitude of the House of Commons over the centuries—that it is to this House alone that the raising of money and revenues, and the disposing of tax matters, should rest.
I add in parenthesis that that quotation continues:
And the House having continued to sit till after Twelve of the clock on Saturday morning …
In those good old days the House did a proper week's work—none of this bunking off on a Thursday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has now made three references to something that is clearly outside the scope of the motion before us. I suggest that he desist

Mr. Forth: That was just a bit of whimsy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was brief enough to escape your notice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even whimsy must be taken in moderation.

Mr. Forth: I shall try to restrict my whimsy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to get on with the really meaty part of what I want to say.
The quotation from 1860 continues:
Resolved, That the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such Grants, as to matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them.
Intriguingly, another resolution passed on the same day reads as follows:
Resolved, That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting Bills of several descriptions relating to Taxation by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy as affecting the rights of the Commons to grant the Supplies and provide the Ways and Means for the Service of the year.
A Motion was made, and the Question being proposed, That, to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over Taxation and Supply, this House has in its own hands the power so to impose and remit Taxes, and to frame Bills of Supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, may be maintained inviolate …
At that time, too—we are talking about relatively recent times now—the House of Commons was very jealous of its rights.
The last quotation that "Erskine May" refers to in connection with the subject dates from 1910; the historians


present will know the importance of that date. The heading is "Relations between the Two Houses and Duration of Parliament":
The Prime Minister reported from the Committee on Relations between the Two Houses and Duration of Parliament several Resolutions …
Money Bills
1. That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by Law from rejecting or amending a Money Bill, but that any such limitation by Law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
It is clear that, as I think we all know and understand, history shows us that it is to this elected House of Commons that the rights are given in the matter of taxation. The old but potent phrase "No taxation without representation", to which I shall refer briefly later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the handy reference to that principle—a principle that the resolution before us, if we supported it, would be in danger of breaching.

Mr. John Redwood: At a certain point in my right hon. Friend's speech I noticed that the Paymaster General—the one Government Member present, apart from the Whip—seemed to be in agreement with him.

Dawn Primarolo: indicated assent.

Mr. Redwood: The Paymaster General seems to be agreeing with my right hon. Friend's extremely learned and lucid argument that this House, rather than the other place, should have control of taxation matters. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will subject to some analysis the wording:
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
I suspect that that, rather than the principle of where the power over taxation should lie, is the real issue between him and the hon. Lady. I share my right hon. Friend's fear that the motion before us could lead to stealth taxes by the back door, and I think that it is here that the Minister would be even more vulnerable.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I fear that it is not only the Minister with whom I am at odds, but our right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is wrapped up in the process and naturally, I think, approves of it. He appears not to believe that there is any possibility built into the mechanisms in the motion that the tax rate or burden could be altered, even within the phrase
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that in the end, whether inadvertently or deliberately, that phrase could give effect to a change in taxation

Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the change in the rate of taxation is a minor matter?

Mr. Forth: That is the whole point at issue. We do not at this stage know whether the members of the Committee will regard it as a minor matter. Simply referring to it as a minor matter in the motion tells us no more about what the Committee will or will not regal d as a minor matter. Given that the Committee will be dominated by Members

of a tax-raising Government, I should have thought that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out—I will come back to this later when I speak about the quorum—it is all too possible that decisions could be made by a thinly attended Committee that could easily be dominated by Government Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and I may readily agree that rates of taxation are an extremely important matter, but I am not confident, given the Committee's proposed composition, that we can rest easy in our mind that it will never use the mechanisms that will be made available to it by this motion—if we agree to it—to alter rates of taxation. That is the source of my anxiety.

Mr. Burnett: It is, of course, for this House to implement and enact any changes. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the power of the Committee to consider tax simplification Bills—including Bills on corporation tax, capital gains tax, and any taxation measure—gives it such great influence that it is an unwarranted trespass on the powers of this House?

Mr. Forth: That is what I am suggesting. It will presumably be a matter for the Government whether they designate a Bill as a tax simplification matter. Even within the designation process, something could be concealed by the Government—either by incompetence, which would be entirely possible and, in fact, very likely, or by malice, which would be equally possible—and connived at by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are enthusiastic about the process that would give rise to the sort of breach that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend said a moment ago that it was a matter for the Government to determine whether something constituted a tax simplification measure. I do not know whether his beady eye noticed that at that point the Paymaster General shook her head, obviously dissenting from what he was saying. I am sure that she will want to clarify the situation by speedily rushing to the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Forth: I suspect that the Minister, courteous and considerate as ever, will want to listen very carefully to the entire debate and then seek to wind it up, with the permission of the House. I would not want to rush the Minister into giving a reply at this stage. I have only just got into my stride, in any case, and have a number of other points to make.
I resorted once more to "Erskine May". On page 63, under the heading "The Principal Power of the Commons", it says:
the House of Commons possesses the most important power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service.
It then says on page 798:
the Commons treat as a breach of privilege by the Lords not merely the imposition or increase of such a charge but also any alteration, whether by increase or reduction, of its amount or of its duration, mode of assessment, levy, collection, appropriation or management; and, in addition, any alteration in respect of the persons who pay, receive, manage, or control it, or in respect of the limits within which it is leviable.


It is perfectly clear from "Erskine May" and the historical records to which I briefly referred, notwithstanding the times at which the House then sat, that these matters are well entrenched and well established in our history and in the only constitution that we have—namely, our statute, resolutions of the House of Commons and in "Erskine May", which some might think is as close to a written constitution as we may ever have. That matter is therefore beyond doubt.
We seem to be sliding, quietly but inexorably, from the well-established position that I thought was well understood—that this representative, elected, accountable House of Commons was the sole repository of responsibility for tax and taxation matters—to being asked to nod through a mechanism whereby another place is fully engaged in this process.

Mr. Jack: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend with care. Where, in the rewritten Capital Allowances Bill that the Committee will consider, are measures that raise the fears that he mentions in the context of the supremacy of this House to determine tax matters?

Mr. Forth: I do not need to refer just to that Bill because the Minister told us, if I heard her correctly, that a series of Bills would be referred to the Committee. It is not just the Bill on the Order Paper with which we should be concerned, but any future Bill that comes to the Committee, designated by the Government as a tax simplification Bill, regardless of content, and containing within it the possibility of taxation by stealth and modification of tax burden or rates by incompetence or deliberately—I know not yet.
It is not only the Capital Allowances Bill, to which we will come in due course later in the evening, about which we should be concerned, although we are right to be concerned about it. I know that my right hon. Friend has made a detailed study of it and I look forward to his comments. However, we should be concerned about whatever Bills may follow that are designated as tax simplification Bills, which may contain within them the sort of drift or stealth process of which I am so fearful.

Mr. David Ruffley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that future tax simplification Bills of the kind to which he refers are already known about—to wit, the first income tax Bill covering employment and possibly social security and pensions income, which we are told will be ready in November 2002? There is also a second income tax Bill of a simplifying kind, which will cover trading income, property income, savings and investment income.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of something of the kind. It occurs to me that even a cursory glance at the Capital Allowances Bill to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde referred, and now, more speculatively, the matters that my hon. Friend talks about contain at least the possibility of an increase in tax rates or burden or a change in the basis on which some taxes are assessed or levied in a way that is not yet clear or predictable. However, we know that the process through which the motion proposes that these Bills will go then allows the possibility of such changes.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out not long ago, the very words
subject to any minor changes
admit the possibility of changes, but try to provide reassurance by designating them as minor. However, my right hon. Friend has been around long enough to know that what is minor to one person may not be minor to another. We have no indication—and I am not aware of any in the provisions, the motion or any of the Bills—whether there is any limitation or cap on what can be deemed or designated as minor. In that respect, I believe that this mechanism gives rise to an open season.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made the point that the Joint Committee's scope for future consideration of Bills is wide, and he helpfully adumbrated a couple of examples to make the point. However, will my right hon. Friend accept from the other end of the spectrum that the scope is not that wide? Does he agree that the signing away of a variety of tax privileges that we enjoy, under the auspices of the so-called harmful tax competition working party, is not a matter under the guidance of this Treasury that is subject to a Bill, and would not therefore be—and has not been to date—subject to scrutiny by any committee?

Mr. Forth: That is part of the problem; we are left wondering about the effectiveness of procedures that we always thought were well established—I will not say that they were foolproof, but we certainly thought that they were well understood. They enabled the voter and the taxpayer to be reassured that their interests were properly safeguarded when it came to raising and spending money. My fear is that the proposed mechanism may well breach that reassurance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is straying into repetition. I have heard certain points made several times—I must warn him on that.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I can now move on to the next part of my argument, in which I again refer to the January 1997 report of the Procedure Committee that gave rise to all these matters. Interestingly, paragraph 21 states:
The perceived advantages of having a Joint Committee—
the very subject of the motion—
are avoiding duplication or the process of scrutiny by oral evidence being undertaken in both Houses.
The interesting point is that the presumption is that it is highly desirable for that small group of Members of both Houses—seven from this place and six from another place—to be brought together in the Joint Committee and then to engage in the process of taking oral evidence all in one go.
I can see the superficial attraction of that, but I want to turn the argument on its head: there is a far greater attraction in the sequential taking of evidence by one House and then the other, so that each could examine the evidence given to the other and build it into their own taking of oral evidence. The apparent and seductive efficiency offered by the Procedure Committee's suggestion contains a danger. It is all very well for that


cosy little group of people to get together, to take their oral evidence and to say, "That's that then", but I should feel as reassured—probably more so—if we had proceeded in the more traditional way, whereby each House took evidence separately, perhaps taking into account what the other had done in developing both the argument and the taking of evidence.
The second of what the report fairly characterises as "perceived advantages" refers to
using the level of legal expertise available in the Lords to the mutual benefit of both Houses.
Again, that may or may not be the case. I am not sure whether the legal evidence available in the Lords is not avail able to the Commons—we might want to consider that point. It certainly seems to be a slender argument on which to base the dramatic move suggested.
The report notes—giving the lie to a matter to which I shall return in a moment—that the third perceived advantage is
spreading the workload between the Houses; as the Howe Report observed "peers have fewer other duties".
We are really in some sensitive and interesting territory, are we not? We are being told that one of the main reasons for setting up a Joint Committee is that their lordships have so little to do that they will be able to spend quite a lot of time on the Committee, whereas Members of this House are so busy that they will, presumably, be unable to give much time to the Committee.
Looking around the Chamber, it is obvious that Members of this House are certainly so busy that they have been unable to attend this evening's debate—notwithstanding its important substance. However, the Procedure Committee had the gall to suggest, in January 1997, that the reason for setting up a Joint Committee was that their lordships had fewer other things to do and would thus, by implication, be doing most of the work. That Lords element in the Committee worries me—and, I should like to think, other Members of this House. It worries me that the Lords should be involved in taxation at all.
Those were the reasons given by the Procedure Committee for taking that path. I, for one, am reluctant to accept much or any of them. The report made several recommendations. It stated:
It is important to bear in mind that the committal of tax simplification bills to a Joint Committee would set a precedent.
Well, you can say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker—it would indeed set a precedent; a very worrying one. Such a precedent, if we were mistaken enough to accept this motion, could be prayed in aid for many other developments.
My rooted objection, which is reflected in the passages I cited from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries—

Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: Yes, of course.

Dawn Primarolo: I am listening carefully to the important points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the supremacy of this House in taxation matters. What puzzles me is that Standing Order No. 60 was agreed when his party was in government, and when


he was, I think, a member of the Government. If these matters worry him so much, why did he remain silent when his Government introduced Standing Order No. 60 and voted it through the House?

Mr. Forth: Because I was on the payroll. I suspect that the hon. Lady may not necessarily agree with everything that her Government have done since May 1997—although she will not admit it at present, she will when she is in opposition again. Her colleague, the Financial Secretary, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench beside her, may share that view. Ministers do not make such a powerful argument as they think when they tell someone such as myself, who had the privilege of serving in government for almost nine years, that if I signed up to something during that time, I cannot possibly argue against it now. The answer is that that was then and this is now. I was on the payroll then and judged that the matter was not one on which to resign. I suspect that if the hon. Lady and I were to have a quiet drink together, I could probably winkle out of her that she was pretty unhappy about a few things done by her Government during the past three years, but that she did not think them quite important enough to resign over—[Interruption.]—perhaps she is about to confess.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I was about to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that my inquiry was genuine. His answer to the House is perfectly acceptable. He might have said that he did not have time to consider the matter because he was a busy Minister or for other reasons. I do not for a moment cast aspersions on the validity of the reason—I was interested to hear it.

Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the Minister.
The Procedure Committee stated that the matter would set a precedent. It then noted that:
It is likely that a Joint Committee would only be generally acceptable if it was plain that the Commons was in a sense the driving force.
Helpful as ever, the Minister told us that the Committee would consist of seven Members from this place and six from another place. I leave others to judge whether a majority of seven members over six is a "driving force", especially as the Committee pointed out a few paragraphs earlier that the House of Lords members would do what Americans call the "heavy lifting" because the House of Commons members would be too busy. I realise that you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should love the House to inquire into what Members of the Commons could possibly be doing that made them too busy to attend that important and influential Committee. We shall have to leave that matter on one side at the moment—although I might return to it when we talk about the quorum.
Suffice it to say that the Procedure Committee was clear that the Commons should be the driving force. For the moment, I shall leave hanging the question of whether seven members as opposed to six could be categorised as a driving force. The report continued:
There is however something to be said for the House of Commons to have a majority on the Committee, if only for formal purposes and as a symbol of its primacy in this area.
That is all it will be; it will be either a driving force or for formal purposes. Within a few lines of the report, there is, apparently, a contradiction.
The report states:
We therefore consider that there should be one more Member from the Commons than from the Lords.
In one respect, the motion reflects that point. The report continues:
A Treasury Minister will also have to be included, since it will be the Minister responsible for the bill who will have to defend it in both informal discussion and in the process of consideration of any amendments.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Procedure Committee were genuinely concerned that this House rather than the other place should be the driving force of the Joint Committee, it would have been open to the Procedure Committee to propose that the quorum should comprise more Members of this place than of the other place? It could have specified a larger quorum: say—for the sake of argument—six members rather than the four we have weaseled out of the Government. That would have been a ratio of 4:2, and might possibly have offered some modest succour or reassurance to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I promise that I shall mention the quorum later. It is the subject of a separate part of my argument and for the moment, in my unimaginative way, I am plodding through the motion in sequence. If my hon. Friend rushes me, I might lose my thread, and he would not want that to happen. The quorum is a later heading in my notes and I cannot miss it.
My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister tried to reassure the House that the Chairman of the Joint Committee will be a Member of the House of Commons but, quite properly—as ever—the hon. Lady said that she was unable to predict who the Chairman would be because it was a matter for the Committee. I was pleased to hear her confirm that the Chairman will be a Member of this House, but it is not in the Standing Orders. In addition, we are unable to discuss my amendment because it has not been selected for debate.
The Minister told us that the Committee will select its Chairman. Let us suppose that when the Committee convenes to do that, the majority of its members are from the other place and they decide to elect a Chairman from their own number. That would be only natural because we have been told that they will do most of the work and have most of the expertise. That is the thrust of the Procedure Committee's rationale for the motion. In that case, I do not understand how we or the Minister can guarantee that the Chairman will be from this House. We cannot determine who will be present, and because the quorum is so pitifully small, it could be decided by five people, three from another place and two from this House. That inevitably challenges her reassurance, which was no doubt given in good faith.
How can the Minister reassure us that the Chairman of the Joint Committee will come from the House of Commons rather than another place? We must bear it in mind that the Procedure Committee recommended that the Chairman should be drawn from the House of Commons. The Minister is reflecting that view, but I cannot see

anything in the motion—which will be a Standing Order—to give effect to that, which is why I tabled an amendment.

Mr. Redwood: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, has he thought about the possibility that the Minister herself—or another Minister, were one to serve on the Committee—could become the Chairman? Would not that be unfortunate? Surely a Minister should be separate from the chairmanship of the Committee. Should not the proposal cover that? Does he agree that that has not been clarified?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am sure that the Committee would be honoured if the Minister were prepared to chair it, but the hon Lady would have to make a commitment to do that and, understandably, she might be unable to do so.
If the House—mistakenly, in my view—approves this poorly drafted and poorly thought-out motion, we will discuss the next motion, which deals with the Committee's membership. I am looking forward to that and will have something to say on the matter. I have looked at the proposed members, and the Minister is, indeed, one of them. Perhaps we will be able to return briefly to the issue of the Chairman when we debate that.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Standing Order does not oblige a Minister who chairs the Committee to be present throughout its proceedings, he or she would be expected to be present as a matter of courtesy? On the strength of last week's experience, does he also agree that such an idea and arrangement might not commend itself to a Minister? In the context of an earlier Committee—about which I shall not dilate because you would not allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), attended a meeting that a mere Whip had told him would last for five minutes. He seemed in a state of considerable perturbation—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. We are wandering wide of the motion.

Mr. Forth: I shall not directly follow my hon. Friend's point, but it gives rise to another thought. Let us suppose that the Committee follows the Minister's direction and elects a member from this place. If he or she is sometimes unable to be present, will there be a designated Deputy Chairman, or will the most senior member preside? If so, how will that be defined? Will it be on the basis of length of service? If so, will that start from the period of election to this House and the taking of the oath in the other place?
Those are important matters. We have been told that the Committee will follow the Commons rules for Select Committees. The Chairman will have a specific and important role. Even if the Chairman is from this House, we do not know how the Committee will conduct its business in his or her absence. It is simply not good enough for the Government to come to the House with a motion that is becoming increasingly inadequate and shot full of loopholes, doubts and dubieties. However, I do not want to digress too much. I am anxious to discuss the quorum, which has attracted the attention of the House and was the subject of my modest amendment.
We are talking about a Committee of 13—seven members from the House of Commons and six from another place. The Procedure Committee, which is a Committee of this House, said in its report:
Experience with the Joint Committee on Consolidation suggests that the Lords Members play a dominant part and that there are indeed frequent problems with ensuring sufficient attendance of Commons Members to provide the quorum.
That is in black and white. I hope that I am not giving away too many trade secrets if I say that it is not unknown for Select Committees of the House of Commons to struggle to get a quorum to conduct their meetings. Within the context of what the Procedure Committee said, we should have real anxieties about how the quorum of the Joint Committee will be sustained and how it will do its work.
We know from the motion that the Commons quorum will be two. We are pitching our expectations pretty low. Perhaps that is because the people who framed the motion took account not only of what the Procedure Committee said, but of the recent attendance record of Members of the House of Commons to their own Select Committees. I know not, but it is increasingly clear that this important and influential Committee, as someone else described it, may be scratching around to get a quorum to meet and do its business.
The Minister cleared up an earlier confusion and confirmed that a quorum will require two members from the Commons and two from another place to be present. Therefore, it will be able to deliberate and decide on matters relating to tax even if only four out of 13 members are present. If three members from the other place and two from the Commons—five in all—are present, the members of the other place could decide on tax matters in the United Kingdom.
If the motion on the Committee's membership is accepted, the situation will be even worse. I calculate that three members of the Government payroll—Ministers and their hangers-on, who are usually described as Parliamentary Private Secretaries—are to be proposed as Committee members. It is entirely possible that the three members of the payroll would turn up for the Committee along with the two Members of the House of Lords—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the membership of the Committee. The motion on that follows.

Mr. Forth: Yes, I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tried to reassure you by saying, as I led into my argument, that I was dealing with the fact that the quorum is two. I am trying to illustrate the problems that could arise from having such a low quorum. Three of the members present could be members of the payroll, and only two not on the payroll, and so the Government could drive the Committee. However, I will not linger on that if it makes you uneasy, Madam Deputy Speaker. One can readily see that by setting the quorum at only two for the Commons element and only two for the Lords element, all sorts of difficulties could arise, either with the Lords determining tax matters or the Government dominating the Committee. That gives me considerable unease.
I turn now to the text of the motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham anticipated this point when he properly pointed out that the Joint Committee's

remit, bland as it may sound at first reading, contains potential difficulties. The motion says that the Committee is charged with the responsibility
to consider tax simplification bills.
We do not know what safeguard there is against the Government designating any old Bill a tax simplification Bill, and trying to smuggle through measures in that guise. That matter has not yet been properly examined. It may come up in the debate on the Capital Allowances Bill.
The motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with the responsibility
in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law.
That is a matter of interpretation. Those in favour of this process will say, "Don't worry folks. This is all good stuff. It is simplification, that's all." However, we are discovering that an unrepresentative number of the members of the Committee, which may be dominated by the Government or by the House of Lords, depending on who is present, could deem that any measure preserves the effect of the existing law, in their judgment.
That is bad enough, but the motion goes on to say that the Committee is charged with that task,
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
That almost encourages a process of making changes in the name of simplification. Obviously, the motion gives considerable scope to the Joint Committee, composed as it is of Members of the Commons and of the unelected House of Lords, to make changes to the tax regime in the name of simplification. Indeed, it almost invites it to do so, and that is potentially very dangerous.
Paragraph (6) of the motion says:
The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee
in our procedures. That increases the importance of the person who is selected to be Chairman and the traditional and proper powers that we give Chairmen in our procedures.

Mr. Bercow: The subjective nature of the remit is becoming ever clearer as my right hon. Friend remorselessly takes us through the issues. At what point does a minor change become a major change? Would it not be helpful if the Paymaster General were to set out indicative circumstances, which would show, at least as far as the Government are concerned, which changes fell into one category and which the other?

Mr. Forth: That would indeed be helpful. However, I suggest that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath waiting for that because we can almost anticipate that the Minister will say that those matters are to be determined by the Committee. That takes us back to where we started. I should have hoped, at the very least, for some reassurance to taxpayers, who are also voters, but who will have no vote concerning the members of the Committee. I should have thought that taxpayers would want such reassurance because what constitutes a minor change is highly subjective and a matter of judgment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman once again that we are straying wide of the mark, and he appears to be repeating himself. Perhaps we could move on.

Mr. Forth: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want gently to bring my remarks towards a conclusion.

Mr. Redwood: On the point about minor changes, given that we start with extremely complicated tax laws owing to the actions of successive Governments, are not changes essential for simplification? Might the Committee not find that important changes were needed to achieve its overriding objective of simplification? My right hon. Friend is being a little too cautious because the Committee will of course need to make changes if it is to simplify tax law.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We may return to that point when we discuss the Capital Allowances Bill later. That will be a proper discussion about whether simplification inevitably involves change and whether change can take place without a substantive increase in the tax burden, tax rates or anything else to do with tax.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. His forbearance is legendary, although it is not quite on a par with your own, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To pursue the point a little further, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is at least possible that the only available minor change in a Bill could have the effect of making tax law more, rather than less, complicated? What would he say to the notion that a major change that achieved simplification might be greatly preferred over a minor change, even though the motion does not allow for that eventuality?

Mr. Forth: It is interesting that my hon. Friend should say that because I have here the 2000 Hardman memorial lecture, which was to form part of my peroration. The lecture was given by the right hon. the Lord Howe of Aberavon, CH, QC, who is well known to and revered by us all, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. It was entitled, "Simplicity and Stability: the Politics of Tax Policy", and delivered on Thursday 9 November 2000. It was a seminal work in the matter to which we are now giving consideration.
Interestingly, and directly relevant to what my hon. Friend said, Lord Howe said that
those who have studied the problem…conclude that, so far from seeking a "big bang" solution, we need instead to identify, define and establish not an event but a process.
The motion endeavours to establish that process, and the mechanism whereby the review will take place.
Lord Howe went on:
We must, in other words, establish a comprehensive mechanism, through which the problems can be addressed and managed tenaciously over a period of years—not unlike the Tax Law Rewrite project itself.
The Minister told us, when she introduced the debate, that we will have a series of Bills over a number of years, of which the Capital Allowances Bill is only the first.
Lord Howe can rightly make a substantial claim to the parenthood of the motion that we are considering, because he said later in his remarks that
we can learn from the Rewrite Project, even though its purpose-built Parliamentary procedure has yet to be tested.

That gives another indication of how new all this is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, we are in the early stages of this process and therefore cannot really be sure about what it means.
Lord Howe continued—there is not much more of this, Madam Deputy Speaker—by saying:
The crucial feature is that Rewrite Bills should go—not unlike present Consolidation Bills—for detailed consideration after Second Reading, not to the usual Commons Standing Committee but to the equivalent of what is known as a Special Standing Committee. This…would include members of both Houses (under the chairmanship of a Commons Minister)—
that reflects the view of the Procedure Committee—
and be able to hear evidence about the Rewrite Bill before—or in parallel with—more form d consideration of its contents.
We will want to return to Lord Howe's remarks in the later debate. I do not want to draw excessively on his comments at this stage; I just wanted to give a flavour of them because they are important in the context of the Capital Allowances Bill.
All in all, in the brief comments that I have been able to make in this packed debate, I am very unhappy about the motion. I was unhappy right at the start of the debate when I heard both Front Benchers say how consensual, cosy and comfortable they were with the matter. That set alarm bells ringing in my head. When I listened to interventions on the Minister and to my own speech, I developed more and more doubts about what all this means. Subject to what the Minister may say, there are far too many serious questions and by no means sufficient answers. I am minded not to support the motion unless I receive much more assurance.
Come the day when we have a properly elected, representative upper House, I will be much more comfortable with the process. Given the constitutional and historical allusions that I made earlier and, whatever respect I may have for the other place, its Members and their expertise, my unease about enabling and, indeed, encouraging them to participate on taxation matters, the Minister will have to make an awful lot more good and persuasive arguments before I support the measure.

Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, but I guess that that is not strictly relevant as we are assured that the intention of the proposal is not to change or affect the law.
There have been some diversions of opinion on the Opposition Benches, and I should like to pull those strands together. We are basically agreed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that the proposal could pose a substantial threat, but I hope that he will reflect on the matter a little. I believe that the Paymaster General is being honest when she says that the intention is not to change the law, that such changes would normally be made through a Finance Bill, and that the Government are trying to simplify the way in which the law is phrased without making serious tax changes. Although my right hon. Friend is understandably suspicious, because sometimes Governments do things about which they have not told us, he may be a little too worried. I suspect that the Minister is trying to keep the law as it is.
To reassure my right hon. Friend, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) that, with a different


Minister, the matter could be more serious. Inadvertently, I fear, even with this Paymaster General, we might find that we got into difficulty with the procedure, as my right hon. Friend so sensibly set out. There are many concerns and all sorts of worries.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that, despite his characteristic generosity of spirit, my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Paymaster General is safe and unthreatening.

Mr. Redwood: I was saying that, on this issue, I believe that the Paymaster General is speaking honestly and honourably, as a Member of this House should strive to do, but that we have on occasions felt rather misled by the Government. I do not think that the Minister has any intention to mislead us. The Government have been trying to come up with a system that might meet the cross-party spirit. We want to simplify our tax laws, but if the Government wanted to change tax rates, introduce more stealth taxes or do all the other things that the Paymaster General's boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is so good at doing and has done on so many occasions, we would still want proper, robust debate and different procedure.
My main concern relates to the phrase in the motion
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable
about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is also concerned. Our tax laws are so wide-ranging, complicated and difficult to understand that the task before the Committee is herculean. The Minister must concede that substantial change in the way in which tax law is written will be required if the Committee is to fulfil its rather grand remit and not to disappoint or simply make matters complex in a way different from the complicated and Byzantine legislation that we inherit.

Dawn Primarolo: Just to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman, the Joint Committee will be checking that the tax law rewrite committee, which has already done all the work on simplification of the Capital Allowances Bill, has not changed the underlying policy of the law—in line with his comments and those of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Redwood: I quite agree; that is the point that I am trying to make. The task is difficult because the law is so complicated. I am sure that the Minister does not intend that the law will be changed as a result of the process, but the experts undertaking the rewrite and the Joint Committee, which is the eyes and ears of this House and the other place, may well find that almost impossible. Achieving the objective of simplification will require so many changes that it will be very difficult to ensure that the law is not changed.
My worry is about inadvertent change. Because we have extremely complicated legislation—Ministers will always say that that is for good reasons, but I am not sure that I am entirely persuaded of that—the job of determining it often falls to tax accountants, lawyers, experts and specialists. Very often, important issues are resolved not in the House of Commons but in courts of law. We know that lawyers, paid very large fees for their expertise, intelligence and high training in such fields, are very good on behalf of their clients at highlighting any slight shift in the weight of words, in punctuation or in the way in which a sentence appears in the overall text.
It would be possible for the Joint Committee to nod through a Bill that had been drafted with the best of motives. The word of the law would then be slightly different—presumably, that is the whole point of the simplification exercise. The Government could be embarrassed by the courts construing a law revised under the procedure in a way that had not been expected. Far be it from me to want to protect the Government from embarrassment, but I want certainty and clarity in tax matters. Inadvertently, the House, the Joint Committee and the proposed procedure would have failed because a change in the law would have occurred.
Such inadvertent change would be even worse: as there had been no debate about changing the law, as is normal, and Ministers had not intended to change the incidence of tax, people would be without warning. They might not notice that anything important had changed; they might have said to themselves that they need not read the new version of the law because it implements exactly the same policy as the Budget or Finance Act they had previously studied. However, because the words had changed, there had been a court case and lawyers and a judge had construed the law differently, such people might suddenly discover an unexpected tax liability.

Mr. Jack: In preparing his remarks for the debate, my right hon. Friend will no doubt have looked at the Capital Allowances Bill, which the Committee is to consider, and come to his own conclusions. Will he give me an illustration of the concern that he thinks might cause difficulty for the Committee, as he has described?

Mr. Redwood: The point of my argument is no, I could not do so because we are talking about very complicated and detailed issues for which one needs to be a tax lawyer or specialist concentrating on such matters on behalf of one's client. Those who are paid big sums of money will of course look very carefully at a Bill such as the Capital Allowances Bill for evidence of any change. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right that those drafting the Bill will have tried to avoid that, but he surely at least concedes the theoretical possibility that one day a change of words—he will agree that the words must be changed in order to simplify—could trigger such a court case, much expense and even a change in interpretation.

Mr. Burnett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had in mind clause 153(1), concerning whether a ship is a qualifying ship or not. It is not if it is used "for sport or recreation". Perhaps a ship could be used partly for one and partly for the other. Might not that be the sort of discussion in the Joint Committee or the House?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point on which I had not alighted. The example he gives could be only one of many cases in which the form of words is changed from the underlying legislation to the new and allegedly more simple legislation. Wherever a change occurs, lawyers and accountants will pore over it, and although I happily accept that, in 99 per cent. of such cases, they will conclude—reluctantly—that, because the underlying intention is clear, they cannot bring a case or advise their client to pay good fees for bringing the change before the courts, there might be cases into which clever lawyers and accountants will probe and delve. We know that at times the courts construe tax legislation in a


way that was not envisaged by the Ministers who originally introduced the legislation, with the result that, because not everything has been thought through in advance, the Government has to return to the House to tie up loose ends or amend the law yet again—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman confine his remarks to whether or not the Joint Committee should be established?

Mr. Redwood: I shall indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are quite right.
I pass on to paragraph (2) of the motion, which states that
The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House—
And—
to report from time to time.
That reinforces my argument. In the motion, we see clearly envisaged a difficult task for the Committee. It will have to look at a complicated rewrite of the law and ask itself two crucial questions: is it more simple than it was before and, at the same time, is it exactly the same as it was before? My argument is that it will be difficult to meet both requirements. Paragraph (2) reveals that the Government accept, rightly, that the exercise will be difficult, long-winded and probably expensive.
When the Paymaster General rises to allay some of the fears expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, I hope that she will explain how long she thinks the process will take in relation to a Bill such as the one that we are shortly to discuss, and how much money might be spent on
specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
It strikes me that that could be a fairly large budget item, because the Paymaster General must have in mind expenditure on extremely expensive tax lawyers and tax accountants. If, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we want to make sure that no slips occur, the Committee and the Government will need to employ lawyers and accountants who are every bit as sharp and as good as those who will be examining the issues from the other side.

Mr. Ruffley: In that context, is my right hon. Friend aware that many City partners who practise tax law at the high levels to which he refers charge about £500 an hour or more?

Mr. Redwood: I am sure that that is true and that, in some cases, they are worth every penny of their fee, given the complexity of the law and the way in which they can legally arrange their clients' affairs to ensure that they pay what is necessary without paying too much toward the funds which the Government wastefully disburse around the country and spend on all sorts of things. That is a real concern, so the Paymaster General should tell the House what sort of budget she has in mind to back up the motion and how long she thinks it might be necessary for the Committee to examine a Bill of the complexity of the one that is shortly to come before us. In that way, we can get a feel for how much the exercise might cost and how long it might take.

Mr. Bercow: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I always favour specificity over ambiguity. I am, therefore,

genuinely troubled by the reference to the scope for "minor changes". Is it his understanding that, in that context, each minor change will ordinarily be considered independently of every other such minor change, or is the consideration to be of the cumulative impact of all of the minor changes, which might be to bring about a major change?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes another good point. I fear that, if the Committee is to discharge its duties fully and to the letter, it will have to examine both every clause and every phrase that is changed separately, and the collective impact of the changes. The two might differ because of changes in the way in which phrases are juxtaposed or placed in relation to each other, as well as changes in the phrases and clauses themselves. That is why the process will be so complicated and time-consuming.
Those who sit on the Committee will deserve a medal for the work they have to do. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says, the work is important, it will not attract the headlines or glamour that is sometimes sought by Members of Parliament. Although the work will be of great importance, it will tend to be hidden from the light of day, so colleagues will need encouragement to engage in it. They will have to make a substantial commitment of time if they are to fulfil the remit which is in some ways fairly exacting and in others rather loosely drafted.
On the question of the quorum, I am relieved to hear that the wishes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have been fulfilled to some degree. He thought that four was better than two and I entirely agree with him. I understand his concern that four in the form of two plus two, from the different Houses of Parliament, is not as strong or as good as it might have been, but it marks a dear improvement on the original draft as he and I understood it: we thought that the quorum was two out of a Committee of 13 members, seven drawn from the Commons and six from the other place.
However, I continue to share my right hon. Friend's fears and I hope that the Paymaster General will deal with them in full. I believe that it would be better to have a quorum that required three Members of the House of Commons, given the combination of hon. Members on the Committee that might result from the next motion on the Order Paper. The House would be reassured by having a larger quorum of Members of the House of Commons. It would reinforce the message, which I am sure the Paymaster General wants to send, that the House of Commons is in charge of taxation matters and members of the Committee drawn from the House of Commons will be important in relation to voting and forming a quorum, even if Members of the other place have expertise on which the Committee wishes to draw.
I am intrigued by the fact that each member of the Committee

shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
That would not give a Committee selected shortly very long, if we correctly understand the Prime Minister's intentions. However, if the condition applied from the beginning of a new Parliament, members of the Committee would be asked to take on a commitment of


extremely long duration. Does the Paymaster General have a reason for imposing that condition, other than a desire for continuity? The nature of the work is technical and, if one was interested and amused by such work, it would be satisfying to see through at least one complete Bill.

Mr. Forth: Given that two Parliamentary Private Secretaries have been proposed for membership of the Committee and that they might expect promotion in the lifetime of this Parliament or the next, were the Government to be re-elected, might we not expect a considerable number of what might be called by-elections to the Committee? Continuity is by no means guaranteed under the current proposals.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend has foreseen an issue that might arise later. I am concerned about pursuing his point, but I understand it.
I believe that membership of the Committee should be related to tasks, rather than to the duration of a Parliament, which is subject to the vagaries of prime ministerial will and electoral balance. It might be better—perhaps working through the usual channels—to ensure that a member of the Committee is selected to carry out the review of one, two or even three Bills, depending on that person's wishes, availability and inclinations and the time needed to scrutinise and consider pieces of legislation that are long and complex. A task related duration of membership might be better than making it continue for the remainder of a Parliament, which is a variable feast, depending on the point reached in the lifetime of a Parliament and which Parliament is involved. We are considering a procedure that will not only apply to the tail end of the current Parliament, but flourish and move forward into the next. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are keen to get it right and why we are worried about the loose drafting with which we have been presented.
I also have concerns about the chairmanship. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has urged that the Committee should elect the Chairman from among its members I think that that is a democratic and sensible procedure, and I am glad that the Minister came to the same conclusion—perhaps for her own independent reasons, or perhaps she has an inkling of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would have wished to move this evening, had he been given leave to do so. However, that degree of agreement is welcome.
Now that the Minister has adopted the proposal, I hope that she will deal with the question of whether there should be any limitations on the proposal. Should the Committee be able to elect a different Chairman every time it meets, to reflect its different membership? More than one person may wish to be Chairman. Will the chairmanship change, depending on when the Committee meets and who turns up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was generous in saying that it would be wonderful if the Minister herself was on the Committee and chaired it.

Mr. Forth: I am a big fan.

Mr. Redwood: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is such a fan of the Paymaster General. There are many

worse Ministers in the Government, and I have never had to criticise her in the way that I have her boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose sins are obviously much greater.

Mr. Ruffley: That is not saying much.

Mr. Redwood: There we are: praise indeed across the Floor of the House just before an election.
I am worried, not about the personality of the Paymaster General, but about the principle of a Minister chairing the Committee. Given the worries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that minor changes could become major changes, and given my worries that an inadvertent change could trigger a court case which then extended the tax to persons or companies who were not then paying it—or vice versa—it seems invidious for the Paymaster General to chair the Committee, as that would place her in a rather difficult position. It is better if the Paymaster General is in the Committee on behalf of the Treasury and the Government, but there should be a more independent Chairman. I should like the Chairman to come from the Back Benches, rather than the Government Front Bench.

Dawn Primarolo: indicated assent.

Mr. Redwood: I see the Paymaster General nodding in agreement, and I am delighted that what I suggested is true. As we seem to agree on this point, is there a way of embedding it in the resolution or the procedure to be followed? It would be better for the House if we had the reassurance that someone dedicated to the task, who had more time than the Minister and came to it with a more independent mind, could be Chairman on a continuing basis.
I would prefer a Chairman from this House, rather than the other place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. It would be good if some kind of arrangement on that could be reached. I hasten to add that I do not seek to be on the Committee: I do not seek that honour. However, one of my Back Bench colleagues who is interested and expert in that area could discharge that honour extremely well.
In summary, my worry is that the proposal has been hastily cobbled together, and has not tackled the underlying difficulty of all tax simplification measures: how does one simplify without inadvertently—or, sometimes, deliberately—making changes that impact on who pays the tax and how much they pay. Not for one moment do I think that any changes from the review Committee and the Joint Committee would mean a change in tax rates. Of course not: such matters would come before the House in a Finance Bill. However, it is possible that changes could be made affecting who had to pay a tax, and which category they fell into. Such things can turn on wording, and Members are trying to change the wording through the procedure.
I therefore urge the Minister to give us more information on how much advice will be given and what quality it will be. Will it equal the weight of advice of those who are trying to prove that the proposal has changed things in a way that favours them? I should like a little more information on the quorum and whether, to reassure people, it can be rather larger. I should also like


to hear something on the independence of the Chairman of the Committee. Having received those assurances, I believe that the proposal may be rather better.

Dawn Primarolo: All of our debate this afternoon has revolved around four points: the question of the quorum; the remit of the Committee; the importance of the House of Commons in retaining absolute control over issues of tax; and the question of the definition of a minor issue, and how that is dealt with.
May I deal first with the quorum? Select Committee quorums are normally between one third and one quarter, and require three members out of a total of 11. Departmental committees normally require four out of 13, but sometimes the Treasury departmental committee requires three out of 12. The procedure taken in the proposal is the normal procedure for quorums.
The issues raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) go to the heart of questions about the power of the House. Members of Parliament will have the majority in the Joint Committee at every opportunity and can assert their supremacy. There will be seven such Members on that Committee.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time, and I covered many issues in my opening remarks. However, it is right that clear answers should be given to the House.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked about the remit of the Committee and its powers. As he knows, paragraph 25 of the report on legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills states:
The committee should have the standard powers of select committees—
That answers many questions asked by Conservative Members in the House—
including the power to appoint specialist advisers. That power is in our view a useful adjunct should the occasion arise to require expert advice independent of both the Government and those from outside bodies who might be expected to be called as witnesses.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked a legitimate question about the role of this House—and this House alone—in determining tax issues. The main features of the project on the tax law rewrite can be summarised as follows: it aims to restructure existing legislation into a more logical order than its present purposes allow. Its remit is not to revise the underlying tax policy. Anything that happens in the Joint Committee comes back to the House of Commons, and it will be for the House to determine what happens. Given the dedication that Members have shown this afternoon to what is quite a small matter, I have every confidence that, when we move on to more substantive matters on the power of the House of Commons, they will assert the same precision and concentration in targeting the main issues.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made many points about excluding the House of Lords from decisions, starting with an example from 1671. Tax will remain for the House of Commons. As I said, after

the Joint Committee has considered a Bill, it will come back to the House of Commons for final agreement. It is not open to the other place to change rates, tax or any of those issues.
There was also a question about how tax should be decided by the House of Commons and how the House set in train those procedures. The Joint Committee does not diminish the role of the House of Commons because, ultimately, it will be for the whole House to decide if a Bill proceeds or not. However, the House has long had procedures for Bills that restate the law with, or without, minor amendments. Tax simplification Bills are a new type of those Bills. Tax legislation has long benefited from the courts' decisions and judicial interpretation. We are using the expertise of other people in much the same way. I should say that the House agreed overwhelmingly to that principle after the debate on 19 December 2000 on a motion providing for the Joint Committee to be appointed in the way suggested.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that this is a new proposal. However, the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills—which are of a very similar type to tax simplification Bills—was formed in 1894. Legislation of 1949 allowed minor changes to consolidation Bills and, of course, what is minor is a matter for the House of Commons to determine. That brings me to the final point of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said that simplification inevitably entails change. The project is to simplify the language and structure of the legislation, not the underlying tax system.
Minor changes include such things as legislating for extra statutory concessions or repealing obsolete legislation, and of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions are ultimately a matter for the judgment of the House. What is or is not a minor change needs to be scrutinised very carefully, and he will see 66 changes in annexe 1 of the explanatory notes. Where the Bill varies from the legislation in respect of such a minor change is specifically identified—clause by clause, line by line—to assist the Joint Committee to undertake its work.
The House's powers on tax are defended and preserved; the House will make the final decision; the quorum proposal follows normal practice; Select Committees have a right to have advisers and, therefore, to call expert witnesses, should they decide to do so; and the Chairman of the Committee will be a Back Bencher.
I expect all members of the Committee from this House to ensure that they defend the House's rights on tax matters, attend the Committee and vote for such a Chairman.
Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 279, Noes 4.

Division No. 51]
[7.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Allan, Richard
Bailey, Adrian


Allen, Graham
Ballard, Jackie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Banks, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Barnes, Harry






Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beard, Nigel
Foulkes, George


Begg, Miss Anne
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gardiner, Barry


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Berry, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Best, Harold
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blackman, Liz
Godsiff, Roger


Blears, Ms Hazel
Goggins, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Borrow, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hain, Peter


Bradshaw, Ben
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Breed, Colin
Healey, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Browne, Desmond
Hendrick, Mark


Buck, Ms Karen
Hepbum, Stephen


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Burgon, Colin
Hill, Keith


Burnett, John
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hope, Phil


(NE Fife)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cann, Jamie
Humble, Mrs Joan


Casale, Roger
Hurst, Alan


Cawsey, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Chaytor, David
Jamieson, David


Clapham, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jones. Helen (Warrington N)



Jones. Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Joyce, Eric


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clelland, David
Keen, Ann (Feltham & Heston)


Clwyd, Ann
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Coaker, Vernon
Kemp. Fraser


Coffey, Ms Ann
Khabra, Piara S


Cohen, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Coleman, lain
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Connarty, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cooper, Yvette
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Laxton, Bob


Corston, Jean
Lepper, David


Cotter, Brian
Leslie, Christopher


Cousins, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Crausby, David
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Cummings, John
Lock, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Love, Andrew


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy Thomas


Darvill, Keith
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian 


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

 (Makerfieid)


Dawson, Hilton
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dismore, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Dobbin, Jim
McDonnell, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McFall, John


Doran, Frank
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Drew, David
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McNulty, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Efford, Clive
McWilliam, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mallaber, Judy


Etherington, Bill
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stringer, Graham


Oaten, Mark
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Stunell, Andrew



Öpik, Lembit
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
(Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tynan, Bill


Rendel, David
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Walley, Ms Joan Ward, Ms Claire


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roy, Frank
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Willis, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Winnick, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Woolas, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, James


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheerman, Barry
Wyatt, Derek


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Chope, Christopher
Mr. Eric Forth and


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Ruffley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following Standing Order be made—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of seven Members, to join with the committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, to consider tax


simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
(2) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(3) The quorum of the Committee shall be two.
(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(5) The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House when such procedure differs from that of select committees of the House of Lords.
(6) The chairman shall have the like powers of selection as are given to the chairman of a standing committee under paragraph (3)(a) of Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees).

Tax Simplification

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Chris Pond and Dawn Primarolo be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Mr. Eric Forth: This is the motion for which we have really been waiting—the previous motion was a taster. Having set up a rather ill-begotten Committee, against my better judgment, with all its loopholes and rules that we do not quite understand, we come to the exciting stage of considering whether the Members proposed for it are appropriate. It is always invidious—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Members should leave the Chamber quickly and quietly while we continue with the next debate.

Mr. Forth: It is always invidious for the House to have to judge its colleagues. However, we are forced to do so in this instance because the Government have brought forward a list of proposed names for the Committee. As we teased out in the previous debate, the Committee may well be able to have an effect on rates and the burden of taxation, albeit in alliance with Members of another place, without knowing who they will be. The Minister helpfully told us earlier that she believed that the other place may be deciding on its membership of the Committee this evening, but at this stage we are unable to know. We are being asked to give consideration to our membership of the Committee without necessarily knowing who the members from the other place will be.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that means that we shall not know what the political balance of the Committee will be because we do not know who the other place will nominate? Secondly, we will not know what the expertise will be. We do not know what areas of competence will come from the other place. That being so, we will not know whom we should seek to appoint.

Mr. Forth: I intended to move on to competence.
The Minister told us that she believed that in another place there would be proposed two Labour members of the Committee, two Conservative members, one Cross-Bencher and one Liberal Democrat. We know what the Minister thinks the other place will do, but whether it will jump to her instructions remains to be seen. We have a hint from the hon. Lady of what the possible political composition of the delegation from the other place will be, but we cannot know what their competence will be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is right about that. In that sense, we are operating in a vacuum. We must deliberate and decide on the qualifications and relevance of the Members who have been proposed to us on the basis of our own knowledge of them.

Mr. John Bercow: One of the problems is that there appears to be something of a hybrid, which


is a cross between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his understanding that both the hon. Members for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) and for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) are currently Parliamentary Private Secretaries? Will he confirm also that the convention in relation to a Select Committee is that its members—this is extremely important—do not confer, still less collude, in the course of their proceedings with members of the Executive? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of these two PPSs having no discussions in advance of meetings of the Joint Committee with a member of the Executive?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend would intervene on himself and talk about pigs flying. I intended to move on to the point that he has made. However, I want to go through the list of names in a slightly mote orderly way, so that we can establish whether the House is happy with the proposed list of names.
The first is the very senior and distinguished hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who was first elected in 1968. It is a pity that he is not present to hear such praises heaped upon his head. I understood from the public prints that the hon. Gentleman had announced that he was retiring from the House at the end of this Parliament. If that were the case—he is not here to confirm it or otherwise—it would seem rather odd that we are being asked to approve the appointment of a colleague to an important and influential Committee, as we have repeatedly been told that it will be, when that person may serve but a few weeks, if an election is coming upon us as rapidly as is speculated.
The hon. Gentleman, very senior as he is, and respected and loved by us all, spent most of his life before entering the House as a journalist. He spent a brief time as a Government Whip. Whether that qualifies him as being of stoutly independent mind or whether it means that we should be slightly suspicious of where he might be coming from, with regard to his membership of the Committee, I leave it for others to judge.
In "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", the hon. Gentleman gives as his interests the media, trade unions and the national lottery. Whether that qualifies him for membership of such an important and influential Committee, I leave the House to make its own judgment. Media, trade unions and the lottery do not strike me at first glance as being the ideal interests and qualifications for a member of the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been focusing on the first-named in the motion and dealing with the matter of continuity. One thing that is certain about tax law is that one needs to study it and understand it over a period of time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who is appointed to the Committee by the motion should have a good prospect of serving in the House after the next election and bringing to the Committee such continuity?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is partly the point that I had intended to make. When I get down the list to one of the other members, I shall raise a slightly different query. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is, regrettably, not present. I am beginning to wonder what level of commitment we can

expect from the members of the Committee, who apparently cannot be bothered to turn up for the very debate in which the House is expected to decide to entrust them with the job of serving on the Committee.
A few moments ago we discussed the quorum, and some of us expressed an anxiety that members of the Committee may not be able to fulfil even the modest quorum requirement. If they cannot be bothered to turn up to be praised and lauded and perhaps, depending on the view of the House, to be appointed to the Committee, I am rather pessimistic about whether they will turn up to the Committee itself.

Mr. John Redwood: I am reluctant to interrupt my right hon. Friend's train of thought, but before he moves on from the first hon. Member named in the motion, may I point out that "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" to which he referred states that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is interested in travel and do-it-yourself? I wondered whether either of those has any bearing on the Bill. Have I missed something? I assumed that the Committee would not be one of those travelling Committees that are so popular with some hon. Members, and I thought that the idea was that one did not DIY when it came to tax reform, but perhaps I got it wrong.

Mr. Forth: Perhaps we had better not tell the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the Committee will not travel. If that is one of his interests, he may attend the Committee even less than we suspect.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that most of those named in the motion are not present, with the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Minister and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), the Parliamentary Private Secretary. Is it possible that other members of the Committee whose names appear on the Order Paper have not been informed of the honour that is about to be imposed upon them?

Mr. Forth: We will want to hear about that from the Minister who, uncharacteristically, if I may say so, did not catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye when she introduced the debate. I do not know whether the Minister was ashamed of the list of names, or whether she thought that the House would nod it through. She should understand that under the exciting and radical modernisation proposals, nothing gets nodded through the House. The House insists, properly, on scrutinising everything that comes before it, so the Minister should not be too surprised that we want to give full attention to the matter. That is what I hope to encourage the House to do.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has provoked me to a further thought. The reason that the hon. Lady moved the motion formally and did not wish to speak to it may be that she recalls that during the 1992 election campaign in Bristol, South—where, I confess, she was not only triumphant, but a very courteous opponent—she was decidedly and perhaps even gratuitously rude about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe


(Mr. Clarke) who, at the time, if I remember rightly, was Secretary of State either for Health or for Education. May that be why—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—he is next on my list—so my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is simply anticipating me. At his invitation, I shall come to our right hon. and learned and distinguished and senior Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who is nominated as a member of the Committee. It goes without saying that our right hon. and learned Friend may be more qualified than almost anyone else to take part in the deliberations of such a Committee.
My right hon. and learned Friend's qualifications must be above and beyond question, but I wonder whether he has been asked how much time he will be able to give to the Committee and its deliberations. As we know, he is an extremely busy man, and a senior man much sought out in international forums and other important meetings. I raise only the slightest scintilla of a question about whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give to the Committee and its deliberations the amount of time and commitment that we would expect, particularly in the light of the question mark that we raised over the quorum in the earlier debate.

Mr. Hogg: Surely the House should not approve the names in the motion unless we have the opportunity of hearing from the Members named, to the effect, first, that they knew they were to be appointed, and secondly, that they are willing to commit the time that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, will be necessary.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am beginning to think that it might be a good idea to adjourn the debate to give those right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to come to the House, seek to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye, and tell the House briefly whether they are prepared to make that degree of commitment. That would be an extremely good idea. We have touched on only two Members, one of whom may be retiring at the end of this Parliament, and the other who, for reasons that we all understand, is a very busy man. Questions arise after only two potential members of the Committee have been discussed briefly. You may wish to consider, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be proper for the debate to be adjourned.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the commitment that will be required of members of the Committee. Has he considered that, at this moment, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) may be diverted? It is proposed that the Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill will take place next Monday. As our right hon. and learned Friend is deputy chairman of British American Tobacco, I wonder whether that Bill will distract him from his membership of the Committee—rightly, as it is an important Bill which he, like us, will undoubtedly

want to resist. I wonder also whether he may have a possible conflict of interest if the tax simplification measures extend to tobacco.

Mr. Forth: That is an important point, which our right hon. and learned Friend will have to ponder. He may have to recuse himself from the Committee—that is an American word of which I am extremely fond, which we heard quite a lot during the recent presidential election. If, in the event of a conflict of interest, our right hon. and learned Friend had to recuse himself from the Committee, that would threaten the quorum. Time and again, as we go through the motion and think about the matter, we may see the sense in the quorum being set at such a low figure. I suspect that many of the Committee members will hardly ever be there.

Mr. Hogg: Those of us who have a high respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) or, for that matter, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), would not wish to impose on them the obligations of belonging to the Committee unless we had been assured that they wanted to be members of that Committee. Is not it strange that we do not know whether they do or whether they do not?

Mr. Forth: We may find that out, because I get the feeling, as we develop this little debate, that the Minister will enlighten us. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) may help us by giving his view of the degree of commitment that we are giving to the Joint Committee. I know that his commitment will be total—we can take that for granted, because he is here with us and we know the assiduity with which he approaches his responsibilities.

Mr. Hogg: Silence is not acquiescence.

Mr. Forth: Well, I think we may want to hear a little more from our hon Friend, and certainly from the Minister.

Mr. Bercow: Before my right hon. Friend proceeds to the next prospective member of the Committee, will he agree with me that, subject to a guarantee of conscientious attendance, there could be two great merits in having my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on the Committee? The first would be the considerable expertise that he would bring to its deliberations as a result of his service as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second would be that it would minimise the amount of time available to him to indulge in Euro-babble.

Mr. Forth: I shall not follow that tease, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can be sure of that. I shall leave it hanging in the air where it probably deserves to be.

Mr. Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but I am anxious to get on to the next member of the Committee, because that will be real fun.

Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend think it would be easier for us to judge the commitment required


and the aptitude of the candidates if the Minister had helped us in the previous debate by explaining how often she thought the Committee would need to meet to consider a Bill such as may be introduced at a later stage? If we knew the timing and how much detail she, as a perspective and leading member of the Committee, will want it to indulge in, it would be easier for us to judge how busy someone could be and still do a good job on the Committee. I hope that all the proposed members can do a good job, but I find it difficult to judge without knowing how much time is required.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has raised a matter that has not come up in this or the prior debate. We are wandering about in a bit of a fog, because until we know the frequency of meetings envisaged for the Joint Committee and the length of time it is likely to sit, it will be difficult for us to judge whether the commitment that we expect of our colleagues will be forthcoming. That is another important issue that the Minister may be able to help us with, and that will allow us to judge the suitability of these candidates as we develop the argument and when we vote on the motion, which I suspect we will have to do.
We now come to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The good news about him is that he is styled as a management consultant. That leads me to believe that he has some expertise and experience that have a bearing on the matter in hand. That is my hope, but it is the only good news about him. The bad news is that he is a Liberal Democrat, so he may or may not be able to bring much of value to the Committee. The even worse news, which follows the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, is that the hon. Gentleman has a parliamentary majority of 56. For the benefit of those who do not follow these matters closely, that means that his chances of holding his seat at the next general election, which we are led to believe will be soon—

Mr. John Burnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Forth: Yes, I shall give way in a moment.
The parliamentary majority of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton puts a large question mark over the likelihood of his being in the House to make a contribution to the Committee after the next election.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burnett: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the motion refers to membership of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Mr. Forth: That is correct, Madam Deputy Speaker, but knowing this place as I do, it is likely that the usual channels will want to roll these people forward after the

next election, except for the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. If I am correct, he is not standing again, so why are we nominating him in this Parliament?

Mr. Hogg: Following the Chair's ruling, I contend that during this Parliament it is likely that a Member with a majority of about 56 will be away from his parliamentary duties rather a lot.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to impugn the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some affection and not a little regard. I will give way to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Burnett: I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's comments. He has a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and so do I. Does he agree with me that my hon. Friend is eminently well qualified to be a member of the Committee? Furthermore, he knows that he is to be appointed, and he wishes to serve.

Mr. Forth: I am glad to hear that. That is the first time we have had such an assurance about a prospective member of the Committee. We shall watch the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the Committee closely, if and when it meets—I am beginning to wonder whether it will.

Mr. Redwood: The Liberal Democrats have not pointed out that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is regularly used by them as a spokesman on radio and television shows. I wonder what would happen if an interesting offer from the media clashed with a Committee sitting, as it undoubtedly will. I have a terrible fear that the hon. Gentleman may be tempted to offer himself to the media rather than attend the Committee.

Mr. Forth: That remains to be seen. Suffice it to say that, although the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) believes that someone styled a management consultant is an expert, that is a matter of some debate. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is another question mark over this proposed name.
We now come into difficult territory. It is a tradition of the House that such matters and Select Committees—if, indeed, the proposed Committee is to be a Select Committee—are free of Government influence as far as it is possible for them to be so. I exonerate the Minister from that because the Procedure Committee, no less, made it clear that it was important for the Minister to be part of the Committee.
I am delighted to say that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) has an MSc in economics, which would eminently qualify her for the Committee. That is the good news. The not so good news is that, according to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is studying assiduously, the hon. Lady is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That gets us into some difficulty, because the question must arise whether it is proper for someone to be a member of the Committee who is also a member of what is known in the trade as the payroll—which is a bit misleading in this case, because although the hon. Lady is a PPS, she does not get paid any more. However, as a PPS she is bound to the


Government by conventions of loyalty and obligation. That must surely raise a question mark over the hon. Lady's ability to act as an impartial and, in her case, expert member of the Committee.
I regret to say that the same argument applies to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). He glories in having a BA in economics—regrettably from Sussex, which probably puts it in a slightly different light. That is good news, but he is also PPS to the Paymaster General.

Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend forgive me if I am slightly less courteous than he has been? Should not the House be cautious about the proposition that the Committee should contain three members of the payroll? Does not that suggest that the Government want to control the Committee that they are putting forward as independent and impartial? In fact, they are trying to make it a creature of the Government.

Mr. Forth: That is the worry. In the previous debate, some of us expressed anxiety that the Committee could be used as a vehicle for stealth taxation or for the inadvertent, incompetent or even deliberate raising of taxes—be it tax rates or the tax burden. Suspicion is raised by the names being nominated to the Committee. The fact that the hon. Member for Gravesham is PPS to the Paymaster General raises considerable doubt about his ability to take an independent view on these matters.
I seem to recall that, in a previous life, the hon. Gentleman played an honourable and expert part in poverty issues. Whether being an expert on poverty makes him an ideal candidate for membership of a Committee considering taxation is an interesting question, but I will not go into it too far. I will say, however, that the hon. Gentleman could favour either increasing taxes to impoverish even more people, or increasing taxes to transfer their money to others who are in poverty. Which he would do I know not; we may learn that only when he starts to deliberate in the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider another question? Is the hon. Member for Gravesham on the list because of his expertise, or because he is the Paymaster General's PPS? If the latter is the case, should he cease to be the Paymaster General's PPS, will the House be invited to replace him with someone else? That, surely, is something that we are entitled to know now.

Mr. Forth: We may have to consider that further. The hon. Members for Gravesham and for Bolton, West may have to confront an important choice: they may have to decide whether they value their roles as PPSs more than their roles as members of the Committee, if the House approves their membership. The need to allow them to make that choice might constitute a good reason for postponing a decision.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: According to convention, a PPS appointed to a Standing Committee does not speak. He is present to assist the Minister, especially in his relations with officials. In Select Committees, it is axiomatic that all members have equal weight, and equal authority to speak. However, given the Paymaster General's membership of this Committee, will it not be rather

difficult for her PPS—distinguished though he is, and although he has a voice of his own—to speak without merely repeating her words?

Mr. Forth: That is true. Furthermore, Parliamentary Private Secretaries—busy people that they are, carrying bags all over the place—may not even have time to attend Committee meetings.
It appears that the Committee is to contain a member who I believe will soon retire, a very busy former Chancellor of the Exchequer, someone with a majority of only 56 who, if he has any sense, may spend most of his time in his constituency—he is up against a formidable opponent, our former hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who will probably win the seat—and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who may either—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is again repeating arguments that the House has already heard.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. That allows me to go on to consider my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. I will not embarrass my hon. Friend by lavishing praise on him. Suffice it to say not only that he has wide experience and has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, but that he is here with us now, attending to his duties, showing an interest in the matter, and being modest enough not to have spoken on his own behalf so far—although he may be tempted to give us some of the reassurances that we have sought. I do not hesitate to endorse his membership, because he has none of the shortcomings that, regrettably, we have identified in all the other potential members.
That brings me back, briefly, to the Minister. The Procedure Committee recommended her membership; moreover, she has—characteristically—sat through this and the last debate, has been utterly courteous throughout and has done her best to inform us. She did not feel inclined to answer a simple query of mine during her summing up of the earlier debate, but I have already forgiven her for that. Nevertheless, I hope that at the end of this little debate she will give us the reassurances that we expect, not least about the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and of her colleagues.
During our brief canter around the course I have been uncharacteristically brief, because I know some of my hon. Friends want to speak before we move to other items on the Order Paper which, I am delighted to see, are open-ended. I hope, however, that so far our little debate has illustrated the real difficulties we may face in setting up the Joint Committee and in appointing its members. I am thinking of their degree of commitment, their freedom to be impartial, their freedom to speak and their ability to fulfil the needs of the quorum, low as we may have set them.
I have some qualms about whether the House, as opposed to the other place, will be adequately represented. We await the names of those who will represent the other place—as the Minister said earlier, the other place may be deciding them even now. I hope I have persuaded my hon. Friends to approach the matter with some trepidation, and not to accept on the nod—with no debate or examination—the cosy arrangement made by the usual channels or those on our Front Benches, and to view these issues as they should be viewed, in a critical way.
Although this involves our colleagues, love them though we do and respect them as we invariably must—at least according to convention—we must consider whether the proposed membership is the most appropriate for a Committee that we have repeatedly been told is both influential and important.

Mr. John Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right to argue for a short and penetrating debate on the selection of members to serve on this important Committee.
My worry relates primarily to the nature of the work involved, and whether it is properly married to the individuals and personalities concerned. I freely admit that I would not be the right person to serve on such a Committee, because I am interested in lowering taxes. I am interested in tax policy, so I would want to change taxes because I think that they are too high and that there are too many of them, and I do not like stealth taxes. I would find it difficult to concentrate on the minute detail, to try to ensure that the proposals being made had not changed tax policy. I would be saying to myself, "But I want to change tax policy." That is one reason why I stood for Parliament: those who wish to take such action should obviously put their case to a wider group of people and try to gain endorsement.
I suspect that at least two of the Labour Members on the list are like me, in that they came here because they had views and wanted to campaign and advance their arguments. I fear that they would find their work in the Committee rather tedious and difficult, given the nature of their minds. We are fortunate that one of them is with us tonight, which implies that he may even be slightly interested in the appointment that is about to be thrust upon him. I refer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond).
When I read about the hon. Gentleman's record—he held interesting jobs before coming here—I see a man who, like me, cares a great deal about poverty, although he has reached slightly different conclusions from mine as to how it should be dealt with. Now he is putting up with carrying a Minister's bag. Tonight—he is giggling a bit, because he knows how implausible it is—he even seemed to be suggesting that he likes to spend hour upon hour in Committee, trying to guarantee that the same tactics are imposed on the poor at the end of his deliberations as were imposed at the beginning. Why does he not say, like me, that he would like to take taxes away from the poor, because that is one way of taking people out of poverty, and also take taxes away from other people?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I agree with what he says. Would it not be helpful, however, if the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) took this opportunity to tell the House how he envisages his function on the Committee, the extent to which he will feel able to speak freely, and whether he thinks he can remain a member when he ceases to be a PPS? Are we not entitled to know, as the hon. Gentleman is apparently a candidate, how he sees his role? Indeed, he might care to tell us what he thinks the Committee will do.

Mr. Redwood: I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend's implication is correct. I have the impression that

the hon. Gentleman is rather reluctant to take on the task. As he has not expressed a view that is distinctive from others that we have heard in the two debates on what the Committee should do, and has not said how he would like to do his work, I begin to fear that he will not enter into it wholeheartedly. I fear that he will not speak with an independent voice, but will be looking out of the window and dreaming of a time when he might have an interesting job enabling him to do the things about which he has written and spoken in the past with such passion and concern.
I have exactly the same fear about the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). Like the hon. Member for Gravesham, she has written and thought a lot about policy. She is clearly interested in getting into the big debates about policy, how the economy works, what the Chancellor should do and so forth. She finds herself cursed or burdened with the task—it looks as though it has been thrust upon her; she is not here to say how much she welcomes it, or wants to take it on—of sitting on a detailed, technical and probably long-winded Committee that must do crucial work to ensure that all the things that she wants to change have not changed as a result of the deliberations.

Mr. David Ruffley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Redwood: I will, but I must make some progress.

Mr. Ruffley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly unlikely that two PPSs would even consider disagreeing with the Paymaster General on any issue raised in the Committee?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he rightly hurries me on to my next important argument.
My second worry about the choice of the three members representing the Government is just that—we have three members representing the Government on the Committee. My recollection of when I was a Minister with a PPS is that PPSs were required to follow the line precisely. On one occasion, my PPS erred a little in what he said one morning on the radio. I was not too worried—I thought that it was just one of those things—but the Chief Whip was extremely worried. The PPS, who is now no longer in the House, was severely reprimanded for saying something that I could not have said or did not want to say, but that he had wanted to say for himself, so I have a feeling that the two PPSs, in a Government who pride themselves on being highly controlled, will have to take the Government line.
That raises an interesting point in relation to Select Committee procedure. Will the PPSs receive the official briefing beforehand? Is that within the rules of the procedure, or would they find that an embarrassment? Normally, Select Committees are distant from the Executive.
Clearly, the Minister will have to know the Government's official line because she is there to represent that on the Committee. I suspect that, rightly, the PPSs will want to be fully apprised of the Government's line, so three people, if they all turn up to the Committee at any given time, will be charged to say exactly the same thing. Indeed, the two PPSs will be under


pressure to ensure that they do not say anything different to prove that they are loyal and attentive members of the Administration.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider this point? We do not know the composition that may emerge from the other place, but is it not possible that one or more of the Labour appointees will themselves hold ministerial office? Therefore, we will have a Committee almost entirely dominated by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. We could have four or even five members of the Committee all coming along, if they turn up on the same occasion, to say exactly the same thing. That does not seem a sensible use of their time. It is certainly not a sensible use of the Committee's time.
I have every belief that the Minister could read out the official Government position perfectly adequately without needing two PPSs and perhaps one or two spokesmen or Ministers from the Lords saying exactly the same thing, but, more importantly, does that not make it an impoverished Committee? The purpose of this type of open procedure is to apply a wide range of different minds to what are technical, not political questions—they are not huge, but they are important—as to whether the law as amended is exactly the same in its impact as the law that the measure seeks to replace. The next question is: if so, has it simplified anything? I still find it difficult to believe that one can do both those things satisfactorily, but I hope that I can be proved wrong. However, I believe that the more minds there are to puzzle over those conundrums the better, and the House would be foolish to allow three, or perhaps four or five members of the Committee all to say exactly the same thing as the Minister.
That brings me to the other proposed names. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I am happy that a Minister should be on the Committee. Indeed, it would be bizarre if the Government did not have one of their chosen ministerial spokespeople putting forward their view on important technical taxation measures. I am sure that she will take the official brief and do the job as we would expect her to—in her distinctive and charming way.
Unlike my right hon. Friend, I have no worries about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that he must be aware that his name has been put forward. I guess that he is not here because he is happy with that. I am sure that he will realise that time will be needed to sit on the Committee, but his task would be easier—our task would certainly be a lot easier—if the Minister told us how much time is involved. I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is normal when setting out a job specification, even in this august place, for people to be told a little more about what is entailed before they are signed up, or put into the position of perhaps having too many commitments.
In agreeing with my right hon. Friend, I have serious doubts about the ability of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to turn up often enough. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), another Liberal Democrat, is pricking up his ears. I was

not about to disparage the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but he is a busy man. I would have thought that anyone with a majority of 56 wanted to spend a lot of time in the next few weeks in his constituency, particularly when he has an energetic candidate against him. I know that he has various media commitments, which he obviously thinks are important. I worry that those could conflict with the time required for the important but technical work on the Committee. Therefore, I urge him perhaps to think again, or I urge the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon to have a word with him and say that it has become a matter of debate. He might like to come to the Chamber to clarify the matter.

Mr. Hogg: There is a bright aspect about the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) not being able to attend the Committee. In reality, the Liberal Democrats are part of the Labour party. If he is not able to turn up, that will have the beneficial effect of reducing Labour control by one.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend takes me in an interesting direction. There are considerable worries that the Liberal Democrats are often not a party of opposition, although they choose to occupy one of the Opposition Benches. They seem to agree with the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be going rather wide of the motion.

Mr. Redwood: I will endeavour to keep my remarks precisely on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton could do what the Liberal Democrats often do, effectively, and take the payroll line. We could then be in a position where we had not just the three whom we know about from the House of Commons, but the two who could be appointed from the other place, if that is the Government's wish, and the Liberal Democrat who, if he did manage to get to the Committee, might say to the Government representative, "What is the line on this?", as Liberal Democrats often do and then go along with it.

Mr. Hogg: And the Liberal Democrat from the other place.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend points out that a Liberal Democrat from the other place could be on the Committee. We are told by the Minister that there is likely to be a Liberal Democrat representative. I dare say that the Minister and the usual channels have enough control to know what they are talking about on these matters. A Liberal Democrat from the other place could add to the payroll opinion, so hon. Members can understand my concern about the possibility of a large number of members on the Committee having no independent view, in an area where independence of mind—the critical skills, the aptitude of members—should be the main consideration. It is not high politics or high drama. We are looking not for great actors and actresses, but for people who are seriously minded to go into all the detail of the legislation.

Mr. Burnett: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and


Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is a thoroughly independent person who will exercise a profoundly benign effect on the Committee. He is an utterly reliable and independent individual.

Mr. Redwood: I hope that that is right, but I have a fear that, on the occasions when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton does turn up—I hope that he does, although I still have my worries—he might dash in, having been too busy and had too many other things to do, not properly prepared and not having read all the detailed papers, which clearly a Committee member would need to read. The Liberal Democrats could be tempted to turn to the Minister or to the PPS and to say, "What is the line on this? We do not want to rock the boat. It does not matter to us. It will not win any votes in Kingston and Surbiton", or wherever.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the right hon. Gentleman is repeating the argument that he advanced earlier when I brought him to order.

Mr. Redwood: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. It led me into a little repetition. I will go on without hesitation or, I trust, repetition, so that you will regard me in order again.
That brings me to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I know him to be an experienced and hard-working parliamentarian. He spends a lot of time in and about the House. If I can make him blush a little, he is likely to have the best, or certainly one of the best, attendance records of any Member whom we end up appointing to the Committee. Attendance is very important.
My hon. Friend will also be one of the few Committee members who will take the brief mg papers home in advance, despite their bulk and weight, and go through them. I see him smiling in agreement with me on that crucial point. I can see him salivating already at the thought of all those fascinating papers that he could be reading rather than watching "Match of the Day".
I am a little worried that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) might find "Match of the Day" more exciting. He might have to decide whether Italian football, on a Sunday afternoon, is more exciting than those very bulky papers that he needs to read over the weekend to be well prepared for the Committee. It would be lovely today to see him in the Chamber and to hear how he would put those temptations behind him, and how—in the remaining weeks of this Parliament, as it splutters towards its conclusion—he would wish to give his undivided attention to the crucial matter of tax reform.
I should like all the Committee members to be independent, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and fully briefed, to have read all the papers and taken a bit of independent advice, to make use of the large budget that the Minister was too coy to tell us about in the previous debate, and to ensure that they are properly apprised of all the crucial issues that will come before the Committee. Looking at the list of Committee members, however, I just fear that we shall end up with some people who have not read the papers, and quite a few people who just take the Government's line. If that is the case, I fear that the Committee will not be able to do its work as well as it should.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House for long, because my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have done an extremely good job of surveying the issues. Nevertheless, I should like, in a moment, to return to one or two of the points that I made in interventions on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
Like my right hon. Friends, I agree entirely that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is extremely well qualified to be a Committee member. He spent many years at the Treasury, navigating the country back to economic prosperity and into a fit state, which the current Government inherited, and he will certainly bring a fine mind to the Committee. Nevertheless, I recognise that his other commitments will inevitably limit the time that he can give to the Committee.
I also agree with my right hon. Friends that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is extremely well qualified and will serve well on the Committee. He and I have something in common, as we both have a picture in the parliamentary calendar; his for December, and mine for September—[Interruption.] I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) understands the significance of the pictures, which are perfectly honourable. A year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and I both submitted pictures for the parliamentary exhibition and, fortunately, they were both chosen to be used in the parliamentary calendar.
I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who is a substantial improvement on his predecessor. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) might have two difficulties in serving on the Committee. First, we are unquestionably approaching a general election, and his small majority will inevitably draw him down to the south-west extremities of the capital. Secondly, it is fair to say that, on so many of the key issues, Liberal Democrat Members seem to be in bed with the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is engaged in repeating arguments that have already been made more than once in the debate. I must urge him not to persist with that line.

Mr. Howarth: I take your guidance entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to reinforce the argument made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Wokingham. My comment on Liberal Democrat Members was made only in passing.
I have already made the substantive point, on the nature of the Committee, in an intervention, and I should now like to expand on it. Last week, we had an extensive debate on the constitution of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to try to discuss that Select Committee, and I do not wish to do so. However, I do wish to draw to the House's attention the clear parallel between the motion on that Committee and today's motions.
Two weeks running, we have been seeking to create hybrid Committees. However, not one member of the Select Committee on Defence was proposed to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. In relation to today's motions, at least it can be said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is undoubtedly well qualified to serve on the Select Committee. The Paymaster General is clearly wholly qualified to serve on the Committee—and is therefore safe from my strictures. However, as my right hon. Friends have asked, what qualifications do some of the other proposed members—other than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South—have? I shall, however, not revisit that issue.
It is also fair to point out that the Select Committee will not be a Select Committee in the sense that each of its members will be a free agent, charged by the House with a duty quite independently to examine the issues that it considers. Tax simplification is an extremely important issue. I do not know what discussions the Paymaster General has had with her accountant, but my accountant tells me that he is tearing out his hair at the complexity of the tax regulations. No one can dispute that tax simplification is an extremely important issue both for the accountancy profession, and by definition, for members of the public.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend introduces the very interesting idea that it will be a hybrid Committee: not quite a Standing Committee in which the Parliamentary Private Secretary does not speak but merely helps the Minister, and not quite a Select Committee all of whose members are independent. Does my hon. Friend have some intelligence from the Government that I missed on how the hybrid Committee might work? Will the PPS vote and speak? Will they speak only in line with the Government, or will they have an independent judgment? Has he been given information on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been given no such information, as it would not be relevant to what we are discussing now, which concerns the names of those who have been proposed to serve on the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman persists in straying outside that, I shall apply Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. Howarth: I have no intention of straying outside that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entirely understand your strictures. However, I hope that you will agree that it is fair to make the point that we are being asked to approve the membership of a Select Committee although we do not think that its members will be able to behave in accordance with the conventions of the House and in the manner that is usually expected of Select Committee members.
I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the previous business that we discussed. Paragraph 5 of the previous motion states:
The procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of select committees of this House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that matter, and I am not prepared to hear further argument on it now.

Mr. Howarth: We are debating a Select Committee. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that the

House is entitled to be assured about certain matters. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I know that I am not beholden to my Front Benchers and that I am a free agent. Much as I like the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), I do not know whether he will have the approval and authority of his boss, the Paymaster General, to convey his own views to the Committee. Conversely, will he be bound by other conventions of the House which prevent Parliamentary Private Secretaries—I was once one—from speaking on certain matters?

Mr. Ruffley: rose—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the conventions are plain and that Parliamentary Private Secretaries must follow the Government line? In all probability, they will not be entitled to speak and must keep strictly to the Government brief if they do so. Those are the conventions and practices that will be operating; there are no others.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend makes the point succinctly. I share his view. The House is entitled to know whether the conventions that he described will be applied to the Committee or whether it is intended that they will be dispensed with. Especially in the light of the manner in which the Government operate, I cannot conceive that anybody who is on the payroll, paid or otherwise, will be allowed to depart from the official line. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Paymaster General would give us her thoughts on the matter. As I understand it, the point applies also to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly).

Mr. Ruffley: Will not the likely role of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) in the Committee be similar to that which he will play on the Standing Committee that considers the next Finance Bill, if there is to be one? Will he not merely carry the Minister's notes to the civil servants' Box and back again?

Mr. Howarth: As far as the Committee that considers the Finance Bill is concerned, I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right.
I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary to my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, sadly after she lost office. I was debarred in 1991 from voting against the Government on any issue, because such a vote would have been perceived as a vicarious vote by my noble Friend. Roy Hattersley mentioned the matter when I abstained from voting on the Maastricht treaty in December 1991. The House has a clear and long-established convention, but the motion invites us to establish a Select Committee from which one of the key features of such a Committee is excluded. A Select Committee should be independent of the Government and should comprise hon. Members who are allowed to express their individual views and are not subject to the Whip. The House is entitled to some clarification from the Minister on that point, as well as those made by my right hon. Friends the Member for


Bromley and Chislehurst and for Wokingham with regard to the Committee's other members. I hope that the Minister will deal with those points. I rest my case.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friends the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
A number of serious points must be made about the motion. I begin with considerable anxiety about the Committee process. I voted against the motion on the establishment of the Joint Committee, which was considered previously, because I am concerned that tax simplification will be turned into a form of tax changing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was not here for a considerable part of the previous debate. The points to which he refers have been amply rehearsed, so I cannot hear anything further from him on that subject while we are considering the current motion.

Mr. Hogg: I had the opportunity to address the House on the matter in December, when, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was last debated. It is relevant to the point that I am about to make. We need to understand where we are coming from. A Committee such as that which is proposed, which is ostensibly about simplification, can also be used as a mechanism for changing the law. It is, therefore, especially important that we consider its membership. That as why I stressed my first point.
On membership, the first question that one is entitled to ask is whether the hon. Members who are nominated wish to serve on the Committee. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), I do not have a clue about that. I assume that silence from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) means that he wants to do so, but he has not told the House that. I have no means of knowing whether the hon. Members who are named in the motion want to serve on the Committee. Even if they want to do so, can they devote to it the time that the House has a right to expect of them? That, too, is something about which we are entitled to know before we vote on their names.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will devote the proper time. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Gravesham is her creature, so I am prepared to accept that he, too, will be present during the Committee's proceedings, although what else he will do is another matter. What about the rest of them, however? Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), for whom I have the greatest respect and affection, be able to devote the necessary time? Will the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) be able to do so, especially as he is standing down at the next election? I think that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has a majority of 56, so he will most certainly be cultivating his back garden.
The chances are that the majority of the hon. Members who are nominated will not be able to devote the proper time. It would be helpful if they were present in the Chamber to assure the House, which is being asked to decide on their names, that they will be able to devote that time. Their absence suggests that they are heavily committed elsewhere. If that is the case, why should they be present during the proceedings of the Committee? Their absence makes me very cautious.
Furthermore, I have to ask how the nominated hon. Members were identified for membership in the first place? I did not play a part in their nomination, although I might have done so; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is an admirable candidate. Who selected them for consideration? It is the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South knows that I am extremely cautious about the usual channels, down which some pretty rum things flow. I am very cautious when I see a coterie of names that has been cobbled together by the usual channels.
It is a great pity that we cannot amend the motion, but must either accept it en bloc or reject it en bloc. I would like the ability to pick and choose, a la carte, and to make other suggestions. I approach the matter with considerable caution.

Mr. Redwood: Were my right hon. and learned Friend to be a member of the Committee, would he not want to be present in good time for the next debate, which will provide a practical working example of how the tax reform process might work? Is it not rather strange that some of the nominated hon. Members are not present? They might have thought that we would have proceeded to the next business, as we all want to make progress.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is correct. He raises the important issue of continuity, which was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Study of the tax law involves continuing experience. It is a fairly boring and esoteric subject. No doubt the Paymaster General has begun to master it after three and a half years, but it takes an extremely long time to do so. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw will not be present in the next Parliament and it is likely that the same will apply to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Consequently, hon. Members will serve on the Committee only for a short duration. Where possible, the names will be rolled over into the next Parliament, but I have a strong suspicion that some of the hon. Members will not be available for consideration next time round.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made an important point about Select Committees, in respect of the general position of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The motion describes the Committee under discussion as a Select Committee. Select Committees are expected to display a sense of independence. However, this Select Committee will not be independent of the Government. The Paymaster General will be on the Committee, and we shall be pleased to welcome her to it. However, there will also be two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and you know as well as I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the conventions are: PPSs are the creatures of their ministerial bosses. They may carry messages, and they may even be allowed to carry the bag, but they will certainly vote as


the Minister tells them to vote. If they are entitled to speak at all, which I doubt, they will speak precisely to a script, if they are wise, which I am sure they will be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now not only repeating the arguments of his right hon. and hon. Friends, but repeating his own argument, which he made in an intervention. I must ask him to desist.

Mr. Hogg: It was a form of emphasis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think was worth making. It will be even more worth making when one bears in mind that there will be members of the Committee coming from the other place who may be tainted in a similar way. After all, there are to be two Labour nominees from the other place. We do not know who they are or what their competence or status will be. Let us assume—there is nothing improbable about this assumption—that they hold Government office or that they are former ministerial sidekicks all clad in ermine. At that point, one would have one Minister and four sidekicks. Is that really what one wants on a Select Committee?
As we are talking about sidekicks, we shall also have the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on the Committee. He is a Liberal Democrat and therefore a Government sidekick. There will also be a Liberal Democrat from the other place, so there will be five or six Government nominee sidekicks, who will do precisely what they are told. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that something that you and I, as old serving Members, really wish to see? I leave that question hanging in the air, lest you should suggest that I am being in some way improper. However, it takes me back to where I started.

Mr. Redwood: What worries me is that the Minister has not intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the two Committee members from the other place will definitely not be Ministers or Government representatives. That leads me to fear that my right hon. and learned Friend is right, and that we could have five members of the Committee all saying the same thing. I hope that the House would not want such a Committee.

Mr. Hogg: I would hope so, too. We are all looking forward to the Paymaster General rising to her feet in due course to tell us rather more precisely who the Committee

members from the other place will be—or, at least, who the candidates are—and what expertise they will bring to bear.
This brings me back to the point with which I started, and the reason why this matter is important. A tax simplification committee is well and good if it simply tidies up anomalies. I do not mind that. However, I mind very much if the Committee extends itself and starts to change substantive law. I shall not be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am never out of order if I can avoid it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall be the judge of that, and I have already ruled against the right hon. and learned Gentleman once on that point. I hope that he will not persist.

Mr. Hogg: I shall be very cautious not to do so.
If there were a serious risk of the Committee acting in the manner I have described, one would have to address the question of its composition. If its membership were not genuinely independent, and its functions were as enlarged as I fear likely, substantive law could be changed at the dictates of the Government and their nominees. I suspect that that is what the House is being asked to agree to, and I am very much against this process.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Hon. Members: No.
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put —

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.
Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Chris Pond and Dawn Primarolo be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.

Orders of the Day — Capital Allowances Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I call Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that a Division had been called. Why has it not proceeded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I put the Question prior to the appointment of the Tellers, the Ayes were not challenged. Therefore, no Tellers were appointed and I decided the Question on taking the voices. It is as simple as that.

Mr. John Redwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Were the Tellers notified—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The long-established practice of the House is that, after two minutes have elapsed, the occupant of the Chair puts the Question again and calls for Ayes and Noes. I called for Noes, there was silence. Therefore, the matter was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take your point that you call for the Ayes and Noes two minutes after the Division is called. I have just seen the clock change to two minutes. I wonder whether you might perhaps have been a little bit hasty on this occasion.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be extremely careful about challenging the Chair. These matters are governed by the Clerks of the House, using a precise timing mechanism. That is what guides the Chair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no further point of order.

Mr. Ottaway: I presume, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government moved the Second Reading motion formally.

Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): indicated assent.

Mr. Eric Forth: What is going on?

Mr. Ottaway: I am proceeding on the assumption that the motion was moved formally. However, I know that

the Paymaster General was not present at the time. If she wishes to make her speech now, I shall be happy to resume my seat—provided that I have your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to recommence later.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to believe that we are embarking on Second Reading of a Government Bill although the Minister declines to introduce that Bill to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Second Reading was moved formally.

Mr. Forth: What?

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Division was called and I went into the Lobby. In the confusion, I was not here when the debate began, so the Government Whip moved Second Reading formally. I would be happy to speak now—or I could allow the hon. Member for Croydon, South to speak now and I could speak during the debate. Unfortunately, what happened was caused by the incompetence with which the Opposition called the Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the confused circumstances that have arisen, the Bill has been moved formally and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has begun his speech. It might make for better order if he were allowed to continue and the Minister's speech were to follow his.

Dawn Primarolo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I help the House? As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman offered to resume his seat and allow me to speak at this stage. I think that, if it would be in order, it would help the House to proceed through the debate—but I need to be guided by you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there is general agreement in the House to that somewhat unusual procedure—I understand that there is—I shall call the Minister. It is to be hoped that the House will give its consent to the hon. Member for Croydon, South when he attempts to address it a second time.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for being in the Chamber, rather than in the Division Lobby, at the appropriate time.
I am pleased to be opening, in a somewhat unconventional way, the Second Reading debate on the Bill, which rewrites our current legislation on capital allowances. This is the first Bill to be produced by the Inland Revenue tax law rewrite project—a long-term undertaking to modernise our direct tax legislation and make it clearer and easier to use.
As this is such a significant milestone in the work of the project, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few introductory words about it, before dealing with the Bill itself.
The tax law rewrite project was set up in 1996 to rewrite all, or most, of the UK direct tax code—more than 6,000 pages of legislation, enacted over the past 200 years. That is no small task. Following extensive consultation by the Inland Revenue, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in what proved to be his final Budget statement, announced that the project would proceed. Commending the undertaking to the House, he said:
The project will bring the benefits of clarity and certainty to businesses and ordinary taxpayers. It has been widely welcomed and deserves the continuing support it has enjoyed in all parts of the House.—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 170.]
I give all due credit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the vision and foresight that he showed in authorising the project—no doubt the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) also played his part in the Treasury ministerial team of the day. The project commanded our full support at the time, and now that we are responsible for its continuing progress, I am happy to confirm that we remain as fully committed to its success as they were.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe showed rather less foresight in his prediction that the first rewrite Bill would be ready to enact in the 1997–98 Session. The task has proved even more difficult and complex than was predicted when it began. It is sufficient testimony to the importance that people everywhere attach to the project that, although its progress has been slower than was hoped, there is still widespread support for it, both in Parliament and throughout the UK tax community. This is because everyone recognises that it is vital that the work is done properly rather than quickly. Much has changed in the past four years, but the support for the tax law rewrite is a constant.
The main feature of the project can be summarised as follows: its aim is to restructure the existing legislation into a more logical order for its present purpose. It is not simply, as has sometimes been claimed, a plain English makeover. The restructuring is probably the main benefit of the rewrite process, and it is the main reason why the work is taking so long. However, the results of this painstaking process are enormously appreciated by tax professionals. As one leading figure in the tax world has commented:
I need to be able to find the legislation that is applicable, understand how it operates and advise my clients accordingly. For me, the Capital Allowances Bill represents a revolution in accessibility. It has a logical structure and for the first time in my experience it has actually been designed to help the user.
That is no mean praise.
Other features of the rewrite process include shorter sentences, modern language, clearer signposts related to provision, more constant definitions, greater use of reader aids and helpful methods of showing the statements that are made in the Bill.
I have said this before, but I think that it is important to emphasise again that the remit of the project precludes any changes in the main tax policies. That issue has engaged the House's attention in the debates on the two preceding motions today. All members of the Joint Committee will surely be there to ensure that the rewrite does exactly that, and does not change main tax policies or question policy.
There is general agreement among those who have been involved in the extensive consultation on this work that some minor changes in detail might be proposed where those will further improve the legislation. Examples of such changes are new provisions to fill in the gaps in the existing legislation, abolition of obsolete material, correction of minor anomalies and, as I mentioned in the previous debates, the inclusion of extra statutory concessions into the legislation.
Major changes to the body of our tax law will always be matters for the Finance Bill. However, there is a general consensus that such minor housekeeping matters as I have described can be proposed for these Bills, always provided that they are flagged up clearly in the consultation process so that people can consider them properly.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Could the Paymaster General define a little more clearly what constitutes a minor change in her view? Is it a change that affects only a few people or one that affects people only up to a certain quantum in their potential tax liability? Can she quantify how many people or what quantum of tax change might constitute "minor"?

Dawn Primarolo: This question came up in a previous debate this afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be present. Ultimately, it is for the House to decide, in tidying up the legislation, whether an issue is minor. As has been pointed out by right hon. and hon. Members in the previous debates, what is considered minor by one person may not be considered so by another. However, the tax low rewrite project was asked to concentrate only on issues to remove legislation that was obsolete, to tidy up legislation where the use of slightly different language did not change the meaning but made it more accessible in terms of understanding and to deal with the extra statutory concessions that I have just mentioned.
Regardless of whether members of the Committee are Treasury Ministers, such as myself, or Back-Bench Members, they will need to ensure that the tax law rewrite simplifies the structure without removing or changing the underlying policy of the tax unless the House is satisfied, by a vote, when the report comes back from the Committee, that the changes are minor and assist the flow and understanding of the legislation but make no huge difference.
As a Minister, I take the view that it is for Finance Bills and Treasury Ministers to consider the underlying changes in policy and for debates to be held in the House; it is not for tax law rewrite committees to do that. Today's debates have shown clearly that every Member of the House also understands that point. Although the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is not one of the House of Commons members of the Joint Committee, I am sure that, when the Bill comes back, he will cast his experienced and beady eye over the detail of those matters in which he considers there is some vulnerability so as to ensure that the House discusses them properly.

Mr. David Ruffley: When the Joint Committee decides that a change is minor, will the hon. Lady tell the House by what means and in what


manner the House will be able to scrutinise such a recommendation? Will it be debated on the Floor or elsewhere?

Dawn Primarolo: May I direct the hon. Gentleman to the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill? Annex 1 of the second volume lists the 66 changes that are considered minor; they either remove anomalies or tidy up the measure. The clause, line and, I think, the page numbers are given, so any Member—whether or not a member of the Committee—can address those issues. Certainly, when the Committee reports back, hon. Members will be able to make points on those changes.
It is most unusual for there to be two volumes of explanatory notes. They give an excellent history of capital allowances, and explain their purpose and structure, who benefits from them and their current intent. There is also a clause-by-clause explanation. The document identifies the 66 incidents of change, followed by a number of further helpful notes and explanations. It gives a thorough and clear explanation of the Bill that will go to the Joint Committee and then return to this place for consideration by hon. Members.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the hon. Lady assure us that all the current extra-statutory concessions that apply to capital allowances will be incorporated in the Bill?

Dawn Primarolo: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, as I do not know whether every extra-statutory concession was added to the Capital Allowances Bill. I do not have that information to hand. A rule was not set that all extra-statutory concessions should be combined; the rule was that, if a concession fitted easily into the legislation, that was the best place for it. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, all Governments—including the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government—consider the role of extra-statutory concessions and whether they should be moved in primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in that point, I shall ensure that I give him exactly the right answer. If I am unable to do so before the end of the debate, I undertake to write to him to explain which concessions have been included.
From the outset, the project team was committed to a full process of consultation with the UK tax community and other interested parties. That is a hallmark of the tax law rewrite. I refer hon. Members to the first volume of the explanatory notes. It lists not only those Members who were on the tax law rewrite steering committee, but the members of the consultative committee and their expertise. It goes on to list the people who have been consulted at each stage, with the proviso that only those who did not ask for their responses to be treated in confidence were included. Some people asked for that confidence and we could not, therefore, include that information.
The project's work has been overseen by a high-level steering committee, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) sits on it and it is chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose interest in, and enthusiasm for, the process is now legendary. Other members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, the judiciary, the legal and accountancy professions and business and consumer

interests. There is also a consultative committee, the members of which are drawn from the main representative bodies of the tax world in business and consumer affairs. For wider consultation, the project publishes periodic exposure drafts that contain blocks of rewritten legislation, with commentaries.
I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution that all those involved in the consultation process have made, and continue to make, to the success of rewrite project. I greatly value their commitment to helping the project team ensure that the work is accurate and of high quality. I also recognise the time that they have devoted to the process. That should be commended.
With regard to the Bill, the House might find it helpful if I say something about the capital allowances legislation to give a flavour of the subject, which may be unfamiliar to some hon. Members. Capital allowances are relevant to everyone who is involved in business, from the largest multinational enterprise to the single trader. They broadly take the place of depreciation charges in commercial accounts for business, with some additional incentives, such as 100 per cent. first-year allowances for information and communication technology, and research and development.
Capital allowances are needed because, in general, taxpayers cannot deduct capital expenditure on investment in their businesses when arriving at their income or profits. Depreciation in commercial accounts is not allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. The estimated value to business of that regime is about £18.8 billion in 2000–01. It is therefore very important to those businesses.
Capital allowances give relief for certain types of expenditure, and the Bill deals with who gets the relief for what expenditure, when and how. The tax law rewriters addressed that and it is clearly laid out in the explanatory notes. There are different allowances for plant and machinery, industrial and agricultural buildings, research and development and various expenditure. The Government are committed to encouraging enterprise and innovation. It is, perhaps, appropriate that the subject matter of this first rewrite Bill should be directed towards that aim.
The Bill will make it easier for businesses, or the people who advise those businesses, to understand their rights and obligations in terms of capital allowances under our tax system. It brings together 300 pages of legislation. The main legislation with which it deals is the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which itself was a consolidation Act that brought together earlier legislation, much of which dated back to 1945. The House will not be surprised to learn that that has been amended every year in the 10 years since it was enacted. Other provisions, such as those dealing with patents and know-how, are included in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Finally, other provisions are scattered throughout several Finance Acts.
I have already mentioned in general terms the extensive consultation process that is the hallmark of the rewrite project's work. For this Bill, there have been successive rounds of consultation on four separate exposure drafts, published at relatively early stages between October 1998 and February 2000. Most recently, a final round of consultation on a draft Bill was published in August 2000.
Not only does this Bill represent a worthwhile project, which will modernise our current direct tax system, making it clearer and easier to use, but it is the first Bill to mark a milestone in the work of the project. Although much difficult work remains, the Bill shows that improvements are possible. It makes minor amendments to make the language and structure more accessible, to give extra statutory concessions and to remove legislation that is obsolete and therefore no longer required. The House must satisfy itself that, in suggesting those changes, the rewrite project has not questioned or changed the underlying policy decided by Finance Acts and by the House. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to the debate.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Any proposal that simplifies the law will always be welcomed by the House. In 1986, Philip Hardman, the well known campaigner for tax law reform, said:
Some of the finest brains in the country are trying to understand tax law when they would be better employed producing wealth.
That says it all. Anybody who had the dubious privilege of sitting through the Committee proceedings on the previous Finance Bill, now the Finance Act 2000, will be in no doubt about what he meant and of the need to simplify tax law.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although the finest brains might not be producing much wealth for the country, they certainly get quite a lot of wealth for themselves, and perhaps that is the object?

Mr. Ottaway: From what I heard from the Labour Members on the Committee considering the Finance Bill, I am not sure that there is a paucity of wealth, and some people may be playing poverty. None the less, I am endeavouring to make a moderately non-political speech, so I shall leave that point before I am tempted away from that aim.
In the 1998–99 Session, I led for the Opposition on the Greater London Authority Bill, which at 473 pages then set the record for the longest Bill ever. Little did I know that just 12 months later, that record would fall and yet again I would be involved. I do not know what I have done to deserve being involved in the Committee proceedings on the two longest Bills in the history of Parliament, but in the previous Session I found myself exiled to the Committee Corridor for the Finance Bill, which set records in length and complexity. Leaving aside the politics of the Finance Act 2000, at 613 pages, it represents a challenge to all involved, whether they be professional advisers, the judiciary, civil servants or politicians—not to mention taxpayers, both personal and from the business community.
As a member of the Opposition team, with just a handful of advisers and limited resources, one does one's best to test the Treasury's vast resources. However, while one can pick up a few salient political points and make the best of them, the state of the Bill is the Government's

responsibility. I shall give just one small example of a provision from the Finance Act 2000. Schedule 14, on enterprise, says:
Paragraphs 10(7) and (8) (determination of value of shares) applies for the purposes of paragraph 47(1)(g) as they apply for the purposes of paragraph 10.
If anyone can understand that, they are a better man than I.
I take a quote of a schedule of the Finance Act 1986 that deals with capital allowances:
If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 above applies, neither sub-paragraph (1) nor sub-paragraph (2) above has effect in relation to the expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of that paragraph, then for the chargeable period related to the disposal or cessation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, any allowance in respect of that expenditure shall be a balancing allowance.
I am sure that everyone gets the point that I am making.
During consideration of the Finance Bill 2000, I led for the Opposition on the subject of tonnage tax. That part of the Bill was written very much with the rewrite principles in mind. I flip to a sentence, which states:
If the cost of providing a ship exceeds £80 million, the lessor is not entitled to capital allowance in respect of the excess.
That is clear, precise, to the point and understood— certainly by myself and, I felt, the rest of the Committee. That makes the point.
Much of our tax legislation is incomprehensible, indecipherable and virtually incapable of analysis, and under this Government, spreading like the plague. So, it is with pleasure that I give a warm welcome to a Bill that has been well received by experts and those in the industry. It has clearly achieved its aim of making tax law easier to understand.
The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants said:
The draft Bill is an impressive achievement by the Tax Law Re-write Team and we congratulate everyone involved. The Capital Allowances Act 2001 will demonstrate clearly the value of the Tax Law re-write process in improving the intelligibility of the tax legislation.
Mr. Maurice Parry-Winfield, a consultant for the institute, writing in The Tax Journal said:
What stood out, however, was the professionalism of the job the re-write team had done and the light it shone on the notoriously opaque areas of the Tax Law.
Peter Bickly, the tax manager of the institute's tax faculty, said:
Although the project has taken a good deal longer than the original estimate of five years—
to which I shall return
the quality of the draft reflects the enormous amount of work undertaken by the revenue in consultation with organisations such as ours. It is a high quality product. It is simpler and therefore easier to understand.
Those are all powerful tributes in which I join.

Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the regulatory impact assessment states that it has not been possible to establish with any certainty whether the cost to businesses will reduce as a result of this enormous Bill?

Mr. Ottaway: I will come to that point, although there is a difference between simplification and simplification of the law. My hon Friend is referring to simplification


of the law rather than simplification and clarity of the language, which is all that the tax law rewrite project attempts to achieve.
I should like to go back a few years to look at the origins of the tax rewrite project. It is with great pride that I say that it was very much a baby of the previous Conservative Government. The report on tax simplification was introduced in 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, in my opinion, the unsung hero of the entire project is Mr. Tim Smith, Member for Beaconsfield until 1997. Although my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon was making noises about the need for tax simplification in his maiden speech in 1964, Tim Smith kick-started the project.

Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Mr. Tim Smith, who joined the Opposition in Committee to defeat the then Government.

Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General has second-guessed my next remark, which is that, during proceedings on the Finance Act 1995, Tim Smith proposed a new clause requiring the Inland Revenue to prepare a report on tax simplification and lay it before Parliament.

Mr. Lilley: Does my hon. Friend anticipate any similar independence of mind being shown by the members of the Committee appointed to serve on the examination of the Capital Allowances Bill?

Mr. Ottaway: It was made crystal clear earlier today that all members of the Select Committee will be free to express their views as they wish.
Let me return to the role of Tim Smith in this important project. He had been irritated by a 1994 Finance Bill that was 463 pages long and a 1995 one that was 380 pages long—I am not sure how he would feel about the length of legislation today. He tabled the motion, it was carried and the pressure was on. As a result of his initiative, in December 1995, the Revenue published a report on tax simplification which set the whole process in motion.
It is important to pay tribute to Tim Smith today. Most of us will recall the trauma of his withdrawal from politics during the 1997 election campaign. Despite intense media intrusion, he accomplished that with dignity having recognised the difficult position in which he was putting his party. I am sure that all his friends and those who respect his work in the House, particularly on tax law reform, will be pleased to hear that he and his family are rebuilding their lives in the west country. I am sure that everyone will join me in wishing them well.
Prior to the publication of the report, in his November 1995 Budget speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said
We shall propose that the Revenue tax code is rewritten in plain English—a major task. The House has a duty to set out clear legislation, which in that area we have not done. We in the House will need to look at our procedures to see how that tax rewrite can be sensibly handled.—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1066.]
The report was published in 1996. It concluded that
The language of existing tax law can be simplified, that the benefit should substantially outweigh the costs; and that a rewrite of most of the existing code could be accomplished over a period of about five years.

The report was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He pointed out that it supported the Government's deregulation initiative—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)—and confirmed that the Chancellor had asked the Inland Revenue to proceed with the preparatory work. Those early stages were driven by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work on this major project and to his current work on the rewrite steering committee.
At the time, it was envisaged that the rewrite would take about five years. It would use a variety of techniques, all of which have been incorporated in the Bill. First, there would be a new, more logical structure; secondly, there would be shorter sentences and better use of definitions; thirdly, modern language would be used, as long as it was possible to do so without changing the law or making its effects less certain; fourthly, there would be better signposts and similar rules would be grouped together to make the rules easier to find; and, fifthly, a new format and layout would be used to make the legislation easier to read. All of those features are embodied in the Bill.
Having arrived at this point, it is important to recognise the role played by Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe of Aberavon, who between 1979 and 1990 served first as Chancellor of the Exchequer, then as Foreign Secretary and then as Leader of the House. He initially became president of the tax law review committee set up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in autumn 1994. Its purpose was independently and objectively to ask fundamental questions about whether the tax system was working as intended. The committee concluded that it was not. Fortunately, as the committee published its final report, the Treasury reached a similar conclusion about the need for reform and Lord Howe was appointed chairman of the rewrite committee. In both capacities, his contribution has been immense.
In the Hardman memorial lecture, when defending himself against the charge of having done nothing about the need for reform when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe gave a reply that graphically illustrated why busy Ministers find it hard to address such issues when they have so many other pressing matters on their mind. He quite candidly said:
I was too busy doing other important things. I was struggling to manage public expenditure, Civil Service pay, the nationalised industries, the International Monetary Fund, the European Community budget—not to mention the Prime Minister.
Lord Howe's second defence was to point to the huge forces, powerful institutions and time-hallowed processes, the weight of which is all stacked against reform of any kind. He quoted Douglas Hurd's memorable words:
Inertia can develop its own momentum.
The role that Geoffrey Howe has played in the reversal of the momentum of inertia has been of great significance, and I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to him today.
That illustrates the need for a separate body, detached from Government, such as we now have, that can carry out that important, independent process. One has to turn to Adam Broke's 1999 Hardman lecture to fully understand the challenge that faces the tax law rewrite project in reversing the general perception that the tax system is too complex. He said that there are four components that make up the complexity of tax law: diversity, volume, drafting and language.
First, diversity. There are about a dozen principal taxes. The main direct taxes include income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The indirect taxes include value added tax, excise duties and a number of smaller taxes. Then there is stamp duty and payroll taxes in the form of national insurance contributions. The first problem is that it is now impossible for any one individual to advise across the range of taxes, which is far too broad.
Turning to volume, there is a perpetual incoming tide of tax law. We have a Finance Act every year because of the historical oddity that income tax is an annual tax that needs to be re-enacted every year. The result is a complete industry or what my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) once described as "an unstoppable juggernaut". Many people feel that that aspect needs to be reviewed.
On drafting, not for one second do I seek to criticise parliamentary counsel, who do a fantastic job in difficult situations. I have never met one, but I am sure that one of them has a slogan over his desk saying, "Overworked and underpaid". At very short notice, they are asked to draft amendments, clauses and new clauses of intense complexity. Those provisions are complex yet, as Adam Broke pointed out, one of the most successful pieces of legislation is the Partnership Act 1890, which, as a lawyer, I frequently had to consult. Its statement of short, clear principles have long stood the test of time and effectiveness.
Adam Broke's final point concerned language. To convey a point, in the past, draftsmen have often used language of a higher plane or language that is not in common use. However, it is fair to point out that, as far back as 1853, Gladstone complained in the House:
The nature of property in this country, and its very complicated forms, render it almost impossible to deal with for the purpose of Income Tax in a very simple manner.
Although it has taken 150 years, we are about to prove Mr. Gladstone wrong. For all those reasons, which cover the points made by Adam Broke, it is perfectly clear that complexity is a problem and that it matters.
Of course, we should not ignore the question of compliance costs. As I said at the outset, such is the complexity of tax legislation, it is estimated that compliance costs amount to 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product—which is £12 billion a year, with more than 25,000 people employed full-time in the private sector tax industry alone. For that reason, this has to be a project worth undertaking for the gain to the British economy.
Looking back, taxation in the 18th century was simply to pay for the armed forces. Taxes were simple. Land taxes, poll taxes and excise duties formed the bulk of tax gathering, but, irresistibly, social engineering—using the tax system to affect behaviour—was not far away. For those of us who complain that the Chancellor cannot stop tinkering with the tax system for social purposes, it is worth noting that in 1796, Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased excise duty on spirits, arguing:
Consumption is so pernicious with respect to spirits that no man could wish there should be any limit to the duty so far as is consistent with the means of safely collecting it…
Duty free would not have lasted long in his day.
From then on, the situation declined with the relentless growth of the Government's instinct to tax and spend. The instinct to simplify is an old one. Lord Callaghan argued that the reform of corporation tax in his 1965 Budget would so simplify the system that it would put accountants out of business. That was not the first time that he was wrong.
That comment fires a salutary warning shot to us all: we should not get too excited about the whole project, the history of which was dealt with at length by the Paymaster General. Therefore, I shall not detain the House on that aspect save to make two further points. First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), simplification has two meanings. The Bill seeks to address one —rewriting the law in a way that makes it easier to understand. The second is to simplify the policy of taxation.
To give but a small example, many think that the capital gains tax system—while seeking to provide a fairer base and, particularly, to assist those in the business sector—has resulted in a complex set of laws. The task of the next Conservative Government will be to simplify those laws. Although that may be a legitimate political objective, it is different from the task that we have set out to achieve through the Bill. Were we to add to the tax simplification procedures that we shall test for the first time today and in the coming weeks and were we to superimpose all the political debate on the changes to tax law, I strongly suspect that the tax law rewrite project would founder. Although I look forward to challenging the Government in the forthcoming Budget debate, the Bill should not be the vehicle for the inevitable exchanges of views that will take place.
My second point is on the direction of the rewrite project. The Finance Act 2000 is 613 pages long—nearly twice as long as the rewrite project's first production after four years' work. As Geoffrey Howe pointed out in his Hardman lecture:
It is like trying to repaint Brighton Pier at a time when its owners are trying to extend it to the French Coast…
There is no doubt that resources will have to be increased if the initial enthusiasm of the rewrite project is to be sustained. Compared with the high compliance costs in the tax industry, to which I referred earlier, the modest investment by the Government must be worth it and I urge them to reconsider the point. It is essential that those involved remain independent of the Government and, as far as possible, remain able to focus exclusively on the project without being removed to assist in Budgets and other Treasury matters. Unless all Finance Bills are drafted within the rewrite principles, we shall always take one step forward and two backwards.
On preliminary analysis, the Bill's 340 pages—which, rather amusingly, are supported by explanatory notes of 380 pages—no doubt represent a clearer document and are easier to understand. We add our congratulations to all those involved in the drafting. However, sight has not been lost of the dictum of Jean-Baptiste Collhert, the French Finance Minister, who remarked:
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing…
Although it is hard to evaluate whether the cost of claiming capital allowances will reduce as a result of rewriting the legislation, there is no doubt that it should


be easier to establish the true position. However, there will still be many feathers flying and much hissing, as I suspect that there will be in the coming election.
I hope that in the drafting of legislation the tax law rewrite team will have learned from its experiences and will be able to draw on them for the future benefit of all those involved. The Opposition congratulate the team on its efforts and will give the Bill a fair wind.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help if I remind the House that the Bill, as its long title says, is a measure
To restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances.
I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will bear that limited purpose in mind and will not seek to broaden the debate to cover general issues of taxation or budgetary policy.

Mr. John Burnett: Before coming to the Chamber to debate the Bill, I had a very quick look again at the Capital Allowances Act 1990. I do not pretend to find the Bill a particularly relaxing or amusing read, but it is certainly far better than the obscure and arcane provisions that it will replace. I also wish to pay tribute to Lord Howe of Aberavon, his steering committee, the consultative committee and all the individuals who have contributed to bringing the Bill forward, now or in the past.
The Bill's layout makes the difficult subject of capital allowances more easy to follow. The contents section is useful and intelligible and acts almost as an index to the Bill.
The initial clauses provide a useful introduction to what the Bill proposes to cover and include helpful and general points leading into the specific allowances for specific items of expenditure. The headings on each page are also helpful. The accompanying notes are detailed and intelligible and provide a good guide to the Bill's provisions.
Before I raise some policy issues in relation to capital allowances, I shall make a general point about the drafting of the Bill. I am sure that members of the steering and consultative committees would agree that deeming provisions should be avoided at all costs. However, these provisions continue to creep into the Bill. I refer the Paymaster General to clause 297(2), for example, which relates to industrial buildings allowances. The subsection begins:
This Part has effect in relation to the person to whom the relevant interest is sold as if…
I am sure that the steering committee would agree that such clauses should deal with charging and the actual event that occurs: they should not pretend what has happened and provide for the consequences.
In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Paymaster General said that she would write listing the omitted extra-statutory concessions—in other words, the concessions that will remain that will not be incorporated into the Bill. I hope that she will send me a copy of that letter.

Dawn Primarolo: My explanation was correct in that if the extra-statutory concession could go into the Bill to

improve the legislation and was clear, it went in. I can give the hon. Gentleman the lists: on clause 23, extra-statutory concession B50; on clause 29, extra-statutory concession B16; also roads on industrial estates, extra-statutory concession B3. Those were incorporated. There are remaining extra-statutory concessions: these are B1, part of extra-statutory concession B16, and extra-statutory concession B49. Those were not incorporated either because they would have made the legislation more complex, would have removed flexibility or because we felt that other changes would be more appropriate. I have placed my understanding on the record. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for responding in her usual courteous and prompt manner. However, we believe that it would be beneficial to deal with tax legislation in primary or sometimes, necessarily, in secondary legislation.
As the hon. Lady knows, the concessions to which she refers and which are not included and also statements of practice impact upon capital allowances. Concessions that are not included and statements of practice do not have legislative force, but they are frequently relied on by taxpayers and their advisers. It is time that we as the legislature ensured that those important concessions—that is, those that have been omitted—and statements of practice were debated and given the force of law. At least that would provide certainty for taxpayers.
Although the Bill will be given detailed scrutiny in Committee, I shall raise two matters of principle in relation to the capital allowances legislation, and I ask the Paymaster General to consider them between now and the Committee stage. My first and main point relates to balancing charges, particularly as they impact on the small business sector.
As the House knows, for plant and machinery generally, if the asset is a short-life asset, the allowance will be 25 per cent. on a reducing balance basis. At present there is a first-year allowance of 40 per cent. Long-life assets have a 6 per cent. per annum capital allowance, again on a reducing balance basis.
I hope that we shall get some certainty about the rates of capital allowances and the law. Since they were elected, the Government have chopped and changed on those allowances, which causes confusion for the business sector and taxpayers generally, and makes business planning and development difficult.
The Bill defines small companies and small businesses. I refer the House to clauses 47 and 48. The problem for the small business sector is that the balancing charge comes in one hit. All the disposal proceeds from the sale of the relevant asset are brought into account in the year of receipt. I hoped that the Government would consider for small businesses and small companies the introduction of a balancing charge on a reducing balance basis. In other words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He may not have appreciated the full import of the ruling that I gave earlier—that it is not permissible in this debate, on this Bill, to move into areas of policy or to put forward suggestions about changes of policy in respect of capital allowances.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I take your point. I wanted to give the


Paymaster General an indication of some of the topics that might be mentioned in Committee. I hope that in due course we will have a more benign system in relation to balancing charges for small businesses and small companies.
The second point, which I have previously raised on the Floor of the House and which I will not labour further, is the matter of capital allowances for sea-going vessels that are not ships—that is, floating production and storage offshore vessels and drill ships. They should be brought into the short-life asset regime, as are ships, to assist our British shipyards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to what I said. He cannot speak about policy matters.

Mr. Burnett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I seek a further assurance from the Paymaster General. Capital allowances legislation will probably change with every Finance Bill. It has done so in the past 10 years, and I dare say that it will continue to do so. Will the hon. Lady assure us that in any future changes, drafting techniques similar to those in the Bill will be used, and any changes to capital allowances legislation will be incorporated into the Bill? We do not want to go back to the position of taxpayers and practitioners having to hunt around numerous Finance Acts to get to the law on capital allowances. Simplification should continue.
The Bill is welcome. Nevertheless, the policy remains complex, so the Bill remains complex. It is up to the Government to simplify, not complicate, tax policy. For many, tax simplification is a contradiction in terms, but the Bill simplifies the law on capital allowances, includes some welcome policy simplification, and is far more comprehensible than the existing law.
I congratulate Lord Howe, the steering committee, the consultative committee and all those who contributed to the Bill. We shall support it.

Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the introduction of the Bill as one of the first fruits of the labours of those who established the tax law rewrite process and the process of simplification. I declare various interests in the Bill. All Members of Parliament have an interest because the Bill contains provisions dealing with capital allowances and MPs' accommodation. I have declared business interests, and those businesses would also be of interest under the Bill.
I congratulate the Paymaster General and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on the way in which they eventually introduced the debate on this measure. Tonight is an unusual event in the consideration of any legislation on taxation and finance by the House. We are discussing the whole of the tax legislation on capital allowances at the same time, whereas Finance Bill debates usually consider only small parts of it. It is an education in itself to be able to see the tax code in its entirety, and to appreciate the interaction of one part with another. When Finance Bills are drawn up and enacted, we are usually concerned only with the part of the Bill that affects the law on capital allowances.
Part of the problem that the rewrite exercise has had to cope with and which the Bill seeks to address is the almost Topsy-like way in which our law is modified over time, but we are never able to stand back and see the total effect.
In her opening remarks, the Paymaster General said that this exercise was not simply about rewriting a plain English version of the tax on capital allowances. I have always likened it to the equivalent of the plain English version of the Bible, because the drafters of that had the same problem of making the message more accessible and understandable without changing the fundamentals. In drafting the new English version of the Bible, they referred to many orginal texts as well as to the King James version, and in even more difficult circumstances they faced the problem of ensuring that the basic message was not altered. It is right to pay tribute to the rewrite exercise, because it has not fundamentally changed the law on capital allowances.
Much has already been said about the complexity of our tax law, and that is replicated and underscored by the provisions of the Bill. As tax practitioners know, we live in a complicated world, and tax has had to adapt to that. That is why such complexities are incorporated, albeit in clearer terms, in this new legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said that this Chancellor enjoyed fiddling with the tax system, sometimes with the aim of achieving questionable results. Even in its redrafted form, the capital allowances legislation replicates some of the inevitable fiddling that has taken place over time. Again, it is worth considering the consequences of that approach in a little more detail.
One aspect emerges with remarkable clarity in the new Bill. I refer to the number of clauses dealing with anti-avoidance legislation. Much of the difficulty of any part of our tax code reflects the fact that, over time—and again in a piecemeal fashion—the legislation that the Bill seeks to replace has had to cope with people's efforts not to pay their taxes, or, in this instance, to adapt an allowance for greater advantage. Any such activity is usually detrimental to the generality of taxpayers, in that costs rise and, somewhere in the tax firmament, someone must pay.
Let me make a general observation. If we are to proceed with the exercise of clarification, the accounting profession, the business profession and indeed the Inland Revenue will have to revisit the difficult territory of tax avoidance. I know that the Government have already shied away from general avoidance legislation, and I think they were wise to do so at this juncture, because it is difficult territory; but much of the complexity of this Bill and others reflects the problem of protecting revenue, and preventing abuse in the tax system.
I want to concentrate on three subjects: the tax law rewrite exercise itself, the contents of the Bill arid the implications of the first two issues for the future of tax law reform. Any analysis of the Bill raises interesting questions about what could happen, and what would be the next stages. There may be opportunities for Ministers to consider changing or enlarging the remit of the rewrite exercise to incorporate what—as I have seen, as a member of the steering committee—is already emerging as a series of good ideas, in tie first instance to make the existing tax code better. A second agenda addresses the more complex, and perhaps sexier, more exciting areas of tax


debate, relating to how we should simplify our tax system. But if, as I said at the beginning, the world is complicated and tax law affects that, the holy grail of real simplification—which means, perhaps, less tax law—is still some way off. I think that the Bill underscores the difficulty in that respect.
I too pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Howe for the tenacious and assiduous way in which—ever since his involvement with the Institute for Fiscal Studies' work in this area—he has pursued the starting and continuity of this rewrite exercise. As we know, he is a man of dogged determination, and at times has wrought remarkable changes with his words. I consider this exercise to be one of the lasting testaments to his determination in terms of the parliamentary process.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said about my former parliamentary colleague Tim Smith. I had to deal with him during discussion of various Finance Bills, and I know how tenacious he too was in ensuring that the exercise not only went beyond what was in the Finance Bill 1995, but saw the light of day in the report on tax simplification that was produced during my time at the Treasury.
I shall never forget the then vice-chairman of the Inland Revenue, Mr. Steve Mattison, coming into my office at the Treasury with the tax code as it had been in 1950—half a dozen thin volumes. He contrasted that with the 6,000 pages of legislation of which this Bill still forms a part. He made the point about the way in which our tax system has developed over time. Anyone looking through the Bill will see how measure upon measure has been added, not just in the capital allowances sector but across the piece, to reflect the growing complexities of the world in which we live and some of the challenges to the tax system itself.
I was glad when the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) enabled the exercise to go forward, although, like others who have spoken, I concur with him that his thoughts about how long the exercise would take were heroic. Instead of five years, we could be looking at anywhere between 10 and 15 fully to rewrite all parts of the tax code. As the Paymaster General indicated, with experience the process may speed up, but the first process has been wise to take a measured approach to the system of exposure drafts, consultation and final review to ensure that a quality item has resulted.
The new Bill is without doubt a good example of how to reorder tax legislation with advantage. Lord Howe reflected on the matter at the press conference effectively to launch the process. He commented on the state of tax law now:
The endless elaboration of existing rules to deal with changes in the outside world has fed upon itself. Even a simple change may interact with a mass of existing provisions. So getting that change to fit in properly will extend the jungle, and make it even more impenetrable.
He elegantly summed up the challenge that the tax law rewrite exercise had to tackle. The new simpler Bill at least makes it easier to see how the interactions take place. When my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to a piece of impenetrable tax law, we could see how difficult that was in reality. The praise that practitioners have heaped on the outcome of the rewrite exercise reflects the greater access to the understanding of tax law that comes from the exercise.
It is perhaps worth reflecting briefly on those who need access to the understanding of tax law, even in the context of self-assessment. Only about a third of taxpayers fill in the form. For two thirds, the tax system is on auto-pilot. For them, many of the complexities, at the moment at least, do not entertain their thoughts.
I am delighted that the exercise has done as well as it has. I pay particular tribute to one or two people whom the Paymaster General, for understandable reasons, might not have been able to pick out. I am glad that the documents that accompany the Bill list the people who gave their time, particularly on the consultative committee. Those people are tax practitioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) pointed out, they make an hourly charge in the commercial context. They have given their time to the exercise free of charge. By and large, they have been the ones who have ensured a good quality of drafting in the exposure drafts. They deserve parliamentarians' undying thanks for the assiduous way in which they have conducted their exercise.
Less onerous, but nevertheless burdensome has been the work of the steering committee, of which I have been a member. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who have stuck to the task in making certain that Parliament was represented on the steering committee. I also pay tribute to Neil Munro of the Inland Revenue, who has given dynamic leadership to the tax law rewrite exercise. Without that, there would not have been the progress to date.
Mention has also been made of parliamentary counsel, who are often the unseen and unsung heroes of our proceedings. It is right, particularly in relation to this Bill—if it is not invidious to do so—to highlight the work of Heather Cauldwell. She has worked 70, 80 and sometimes even 90 hours a week to ensure that the law is properly drafted. That is no mean feat, and she and the other parliamentary counsel who have been working on the Bill should be thanked for all their efforts. Although those on the Treasury Bench have occasionally been a little naughty by hijacking parliamentary counsel for pressing work on the Finance Bill itself, I think that the message of permanency has been made clear in the Bill's drafting.
As I said, one of the results of the exercise is the identification of the need to go further. In his 1998 stocktake report, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe, commenting to the Chancellor, said:
Many people would like the project to go further towards simplification of the underlying tax policy. The process of rewriting the legislation is highlighting many archaic or cumbersome aspects of the tax code which they believe could be improved.
Sadly, as the Paymaster General said, the exercise in which we are now engaged—to approve the Bill's Second Reading—prevents us from addressing some of those issues. However, perhaps the greater transparency and clarity emerging from the exercise will trigger a future debate.
The exercise has also been very educational even for people in the Revenue. As I said, it is not often that they have the opportunity of such an overview of legislation and to consider the interactions that that legislation involves. I very much hope that the good ideas resulting from the exercise will find their way into legislation.
In fairness, the Paymaster General may not have had time to mention that the previous Finance Bill made it possible to incorporate into this Bill a change in the law to revise the legislation on car-pooling arrangements. I congratulate the Treasury on using the Finance Bill in that way. I encourage the Treasury, when there are good ideas, to work with the rewrite committee in using future Finance Bills—perhaps creatively—to enhance further the operation of our tax law. Whatever our views on the freestanding tonnage tax—which is not dealt with in this Bill—it demonstrates that lessons learned in drafting can be applied to forthcoming legislation. Clearly, the Inland Revenue and the Treasury are learning a great deal from the exercise.
I draw the House's attention to some very interesting and sage words in the minute of the 25th steering committee of the tax law rewrite exercise. Although the comment was on an employment income exposure draft, it very clearly demonstrates the challenge that the exercise has had to face and will have to face. The minute states:
The team had found the legislation particularly difficult to rewrite because of its complexity. There were many issues to unravel, many connections between provisions to untangle and a number of fictions and hypotheses to sort out. A good example was section 198, which seems relatively uncomplicated in itself but is used by other provisions in a variety of ways. Sections 156(8), 193(3), 193(7) and 200A all latch on to the rules in section 198 in different ways.
It goes on to say:
What works well in one respect does not work well in another. But the current arrangement is seen as the best compromise.
I am sure that the same analysis occurred to those who wrote the Bill. It demonstrates the sheer complexity of the exercise.
Much mention has been made of the explanatory notes. I congratulate those who wrote them. Even though the new legislation is drafted in plain English, it is useful to have such an overview, which might be called the Ordnance Survey equivalent of tax law. However, I ask hon. Members to scan page 7 of the notes and to consider the variety of matters with which capital allowances must deal: plant and machinery, industrial buildings, agricultural buildings, mineral extraction, research and development, know-how, patents, dredging, assured tenancy and contributions. There are also supplementary provisions. At some stage, it must have been argued that the inclusion of each of those items in capital allowances legislation is vital, even though each is highly complex.
One of my wishes on the explanatory notes would be to include in the Bill the excellent summary diagram on pools on page 18, which provides for the first time a visual means of exploring the meaning of a Bill. I think that Revenue officials must have remembered from my time in the Treasury my Roland Emmett-type diagrams, which tried to follow the flow of money as it was influenced and affected by different elements of legislation. The table on page 18 of the explanatory notes, which is delineated as figure 1, has remarkable clarity and much greater understanding. It is an excellent means of providing an overview of how something works. One of the great advantages of the Bill as redrafted is the elegant explanations at the start of clauses, which say in plain terms to whom they apply. If illustrations such as the diagram on page 18 could also be included in legislation, we would go a long way towards further improving clarity and understanding in these matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, the list of chapters almost resembles an index to the Bill. I refer anybody who wants to understand the Bill's full import to the arrangement of chapter headings in the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which it replaces. Part I of the Bill has an introduction and a logical exposition of its contents that leaves one in no doubt of what is involved. However, the existing legislation is arranged in a topsy-turvy way, with no logic whatever. That element of clarity in the Bill is much to be commended.
I undertook to compare and contrast the new with the old. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General laughs, probably because six has tried the same exercise.

Dawn Primarolo: I apologise for laughing. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks reminded me of the large number of Finance Bill Standing Committees on which we have served together. In those Committees, he usually began his sentences with the words "compare and contrast".

Mr. Jack: I am delighted that my words have seared their way into the Paymaster General's mind. I hope that my proposals about lessons arising from the exercise will have a similar effect.
Interestingly, section 23 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 bears the title "Information relating to first-year allowances". The fin t thing that one reads about first-year allowances is the following statement:
A claim … for a first year allowance in respect of expenditure to which 22(4)(c) applies … shall be accompanied by a certificate …
I shall not bore the House by reading out the rest of that opaque legislation paragraph by paragraph, but I cite it to contrast it with the start of first-year allowances in the Bill, in which clause 52 states, straightforwardly:
A person is entitled to a first-year allowance in respect of first-year qualifying expenditure: …
and goes on to give details of the circumstances in which the allowances are applicable. Then, for the first time that I can remember, there follows a clear table laying out the types of expenditure and the allowances for which they qualify. The introductory section then provides an example of the signpost that the hon. Lady mentioned that points people to other parts of the Bill in which further information can be found. This is a remarkable change.
This is the only part of the Bill that I could find in which one could try to contrast the new with the old, but I would commend that exercise as a way of reassuring my right hon. and hon. Friends who have expressed concern about, for example, the nature of what constitutes a minor change, and about what the Bill seeks to do. Once one has looked at the before-and-after effect, one understands that minor changes have had to be made to enable this clearer exposition of the existing fundamental tax code to take place. If one overlays that with the appropriate incorporation of the extra statutory concessions, one begins to understand what the exercise is about.
It is also worth looking at the second document that the Paymaster General mentioned: the explanatory note annexes. She prayed in aid the document to illustrate where definitional changes had been made. I would like to look at one or two of those definitional changes, as they illustrate some of the problems with which the Bill has had to grapple.
When I was in the Treasury, I had a big argument with the Inland Revenue over a provision about capital allowances on caravans. One would not have believed the number of definitions in law of a caravan. You and I, Mr. Speaker, would know what a caravan was if we were sitting behind one in a traffic queue. However, a separate piece of law that exists for council tax purposes defines a caravan, and there are two definitions of them in the tax code: caravans on touring caravan sites, and caravans of a more fixed nature. In terms of capital allowance legislation, those definitions had different effects until I managed to persuade officials that they described one and the same thing.
The new definition on page 3 of the explanatory notes annexes states:
The main significance of the extended definition in the present context is that it includes structures that can be moved only by being put on trailers.
That is a great breakthrough in the definition of a caravan, but it also illustrates the problem of tax law having to cater for special circumstances, which someone, at some time, thought was a good idea in terms of protecting tax expenditure or revenue in the context of capital allowances. This exercise, as illustrated by the Bill, will highlight the anomalies, and the need to do something about them will present considerable challenges to the Government.
Annexe 2 on page 73 of the same document highlights one of the challenges that has had to be met in terms of the language of the Bill. As the Paymaster General mentioned, clause 3(1) provides that
No allowance is to be made under this Act unless a claim for it is made.
It is intriguing to think about the legal cases that lie behind the decisions about the terms on which capital allowances can be claimed. The explanatory notes say:
It was argued by the Inland Revenue that, because trading expenses are automatically deductible in computing trading profits, the effect of making a capital allowance a trading expense was to obviate the need for the allowance to be claimed and to make it automatically deductible.
Somebody, in the case of Elliss v. BP Oil Northern Ireland Refinery Ltd., had wanted to determine in law when a claim could be made. That is one of the real difficulties of our tax code, and although the Bill writes the tax law in clearer language, it will not stop people questioning exactly what the words mean.
In tax law we are dealing not with precise scientific formulae but with words capable of interpretation. Page 75 of the explanatory notes, which is about clause 5, gives us another example on the same theme of the ownership of an asset. Obviously, the determination of when a capital allowance can be claimed is related to when someone acquired the asset—and again, there is some interesting case law that determines when ownership occurs. Ownership could begin on the day when someone bought an asset at auction, or it could begin when it was delivered to his premises. I shall not detain the House with a detailed exposition—

Mr. Ruffley: Go on.

Mr. Jack: No, I shall resist my hon. Friend's encouragement.
I put those two examples on the record because they illustrate some of the real problems that arise when people say that we should have less complex tax law. Such people will criticise the Bill and say, "It doesn't look any less complex to me; it's simply that now I can understand the complexity better." However, when we realise that people go to law over questions of precise timing, and exactly when an asset becomes owned, we understand why our tax law is complex. As the Paymaster General said, £18.8 billion in tax is forgone as a result of the allowances that are at stake, so it is not surprising that it is necessary to ensure that the law is tightly drafted.
I have one or two criticisms of the layout of the Bill. I have talked to tax practitioners, and I know that there was real disappointment that three-part numbering could not have been incorporated. When the legislation was launched, especially in its exposure draft stage, all the practitioners commented on how much clearer things were with three-part numbering. In fairness to the Paymaster General, she supported that proposal—I hope that I have not embarrassed her by revealing that in public.
Sadly, upon immediate inspection, the present version of the Bill looks exactly like any other piece of legislation. Three-part numbering, which would have enabled practitioners more readily to identify its component parts, was denied the light of day because, we were told, the law had to be written so as to be compliant with everything else, not with the new form of numbering. A real opportunity has been missed to add to the clarity of the exercise.
I have already mentioned the idea of incorporating a table, and that leads me to make the point that, in commenting on its overall layout, some practitioners have said that the Bill should have had better spacing and a more modern look. That would have been an advantage, especially bearing in mind the unique nature of what we are doing here. Perhaps, in time, it will be possible for us to consider that proposal. I hope that the layout will be reconsidered, which would not detract from the content of the Bill.
Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, gave us proper counsel about not straying too far into policy issues. I shall respect his ruling entirely—save to say that I have been thinking about some of the individual capital allowances mentioned in the Bill, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced some interesting analysis that makes us question the real-world effectiveness of some of the measures, however transparently they are drafted. Therefore, I—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Tax Simplification (Joint Committee), Tax Simplification. Human Rights (Joint Committee) and Human Rights and proceedings on the Capital Allowances Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 8.

Division No. 52
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cotter, Brian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Crausby, David


Allan, Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bailey, Adrian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ballard, Jackie
Dawson, Hilton


Banks, Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew


Battle, John
Dobbin, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H


Beard, Nigel
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Drew, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Fearn, Ronnie


Blackman, Liz
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Flynn, Paul



Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Gidley, Sandra


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Burnett, John
Goggins, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Lin


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Harvey, Nick


Casale, Roger
Healey, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hendrick, Mark


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Chaytor, David

Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoey, Kate


Home Robertson, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cooper, Yvette
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)





Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn


Joyce, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sanders, Adrian


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shaw, Jonathan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Singh, Marsha


McDonnell, John
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


Mactaggart, Fiona
Soley, Clive


McWalter, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stringer, Graham


Merron, Gillian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moffatt, Laura
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Mountford, Kali
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tyler, Paul


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tynan, Bill


Pearson, Ian
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Pollard, Kerry
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
Webb, Steve


Pope, Greg
White, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)






Wills, Phil
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, James
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Eric Forth and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Jack: Before the Division, I was referring to the complexity of the legislation. For the record, I want to make an observation on chapter 10, which deals with long-life assets. I am delighted that it retains the exceptions from long-life asset expenditure. They include railway assets, which reflect the proper assistance that the previous Administration gave in the capital allowance regime to encouraging investment in railways.
The privatisation of the railways is sometimes criticised, especially in current circumstances. Certainly in tax terms, the retention of those exceptions in the rewrite Bill is important. However, the fact that there are exceptions, even from something as straightforward as differentiating long-term from short-term life assets, again illustrates the complexity of tax legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can anticipate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to say. Hon. Members must be quiet in the Chamber.

Mr. Jack: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
One of the most interesting observations in the debate was made in a commentary by an outside body. It is interesting to carry out on the Bill the, benchmark exercise occasioned by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in its publication on a better tax system, in which it identified 10 tenets of taxation. The tax system should, for example, be statutory, certain, simple and easy to collect and to calculate. Certainly, the Bill is statutory. Greater certainty is introduced by the improved language. However, the Bill begins to fail on the question of simplicity because, as I have already demonstrated, it contains complexities re-enacted in plainer language. Will the Bill make tax easier to collect and calculate? It will probably be easier for people to calculate their tax position, but the Bill does not deal with collection.
The fifth tenet is that tax law should be properly targeted. That goes beyond the terms of this debate.
Sixthly, it should be constant, and changes to the underlying rules should be kept to a minimum. In rewritten legislation, the changes are as defined by the

Paymaster General. However, the greater transparency of the rewritten legislation shows that many changes and exceptions have been built into the law.
Another interesting tenet is that legislation should be subject to proper consultation. On that point, the rewritten legislation scores very highly. That raises an interesting point for the future of our tax system. Many have argued that there should be a separation of the mechanics of the tax system and the more contentious legislation on new tax policy introduced in the Budget. The exercise that accompanied the new Bill, which involved a great deal of consultation with practitioners, has shown how high-quality tax legislation can be produced as a result of the consultative process. The lesson for the Treasury is that, in tax management Acts, wherever possible, more consultation should be the order of the day.
The eighth tenet is that tax rules should be regularly reviewed. I shall say more about that, and about other lessons that have been learned from the rewrite exercise, in my concluding remarks.
The ninth tenet is that tax law should be fair and reasonable. I shall leave others to comment on whether the Bill meets those conditions.
The final tenet is that tax law should be competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South touched on that earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether there would be any saving to business as a result of the rewritten legislation. The greatest potential for progress in that respect is that the Bill teases out those parts of the tax code—in this context, those on capital allowances—which may be causing business problems. For example, on the 100 per cent. allowance on investment in films there is a question whether the investment is good. I trespass no further than that, except to say that the clarity with which the Bill is written will itself be the precursor for greater debate on issues such as competitiveness and the cost of administering the tax.
What of the future? What does the Bill offer?

Mr. Forth: Not a lot.

Mr. Jack: I ever so slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend because the Bill will have certain results.
The word "simplification" is used in the context of both the proposed procedures and the Bill, but constraints on rewrite legislation have made taking out some of the complexity difficult to achieve. Let us consider the overall debate on simple tax. My right hon. and hon. Friends will remember Nigel Forman, the former Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who did much work on the concept of flat tax—a simple, no-allowances based system, with a single rate of tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps unintentionally, he is going wider than the content of the Bill.

Mr. Jack: I entirely respect your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to illustrate that the holy grail of simplification is easily stated, as it has been by former Members, but much more difficult to achieve. The minutes of the steering committee, the work of the consultative committee, which gave rise to the Bill, and the Hardman lectures commenting on the matter, to which


my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred, take us to the heart of the matter of how we might achieve greater simplification.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe said that part of the problem, which is reflected in the Bill, is that the provisional collection of taxes legislation almost gives the Treasury carte blanche to introduce yet more change every year. Part of my right hon. and noble Friend's recipe to try to simplify matters was to desist from that practice.
If we are to learn something from the exercise, we should establish a committee—preferably a parliamentary committee, but involving outside advice—to re-examine every element of tax law, questioning, for example, whether we need the provisions in the rewritten Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is going beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Jack: I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Mr. Speaker. Forgive me for thinking of you as you were and not as you are. Old practices should not die hard in this place. I mentioned the point because the Paymaster General referred to the exercise in introducing the Bill. Some of the lessons that we should learn from that merit some mention—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Passing reference is one thing, but detail is another. He has made passing reference to the matter. Perhaps now he can move to something else.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The last thing that I would want to do is fall foul of your advice. I conclude my en passant reference by saying that the Bill should be followed up by the Treasury forming a committee to consider in a wider context the fruits of such labour. That would benefit all those who have supported the exercise so fully, as both Front-Bench spokesmen said.
Without doubt, the Bill brings transparency and clarity to capital allowances. It should command the support of everyone in the House. I look forward to consideration of it in the Joint Committee. Adequate signposting in the explanatory notes of the changes should answer some of the points about the difference between major and minor changes. In its first line, the Bill states clearly that the measure deals with "minor changes". After textual analysis of some of its parts, I would say that it has achieved that. However, it is difficult directly to compare the old and the new, because the new is radically different. The exercise deserves our support as a signpost for the way in which tax law should in future be written. The Bill will have my support.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the fact that the first tax simplification Bill deals with the subject of capital allowances. For me—as, I suspect, for other hon. Members who entered the House at the same time as I did—it has a nostalgic feel about it.
In 1983, when I was first elected to Parliament, simplification of the tax system was in vogue, and capital allowances were the first in the proposed list of candidates for simplification. I remember when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Lawson of Blaby, summoned a meeting of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and other ambitious young men and women to take their views on what he should include in his forthcoming Budget, which was the first of a new Parliament. I think that the first person to speak was Tim Smith, who proposed that we should go for a tax-simplifying Budget, central to which would be the simplification of capital allowances. It is fascinating to recall that everyone at that private meeting agreed with him—all concurred that that was the way to reduce tax rates by spreading the burden of tax more widely.
I confess to being the only person who demurred: for what it was worth, I argued that changes so radical should be introduced to the tax system only if there were substantial benefits, and preferably when one was reducing the overall burden of tax, rather than merely shifting it from one set of taxpayers or from one activity to another, which was all that would have been achieved by the changes supported by Tim Smith and the others. I argued that those changes would merely reduce the burden on some taxpayers, who would never thank the Chancellor—no one is ever grateful in this life—and increase it on others, who would resent the Chancellor for making the changes.
The consequence of my arguments was that, shortly thereafter, I was made the Chancellor's Parliamentary Private Secretary. That might have been because he liked those who were sufficiently strong-minded to disagree with him, or because, he wanted to shut me up—I have never bothered to ask. However, it meant that I worked with him as his humble bag carrier and ears and eyes around the House. I sat alongside him on the Committee on the Finance Bill in which he carried through the reforms of the capital allowances system in his simplifying Budget, which I think was a couple of Budgets later.
The paradox facing the House today is that the first tax simplification Bill introduced under the new process is to simplify the very element of the tax system that was previously simplified back in 1968 under the radical reforms introduced by the then Chancellor. My question is, in what sense does the Bill further simplify our existing tax system? Several different senses of the word "simplification" can be applied. The first is to make the system shorter, terser and more succinct, but I have to say that the Bill does not qualify as a short, terse and succinct statement of the tax system as it applies to the single element of expenditure—capital expenditure—to which it is addressed. It is 334 pages long, not counting the accompanying notes, which are almost as long, or the annexe explaining how it relates to existing tax law. So it is not a shortened tax Bill.
The second sense of simplification is clarification and moving towards plain English, which is welcome. I have always been an advocate of legislation in plain English, wherever possible. That is applied to a much greater extent in the United States and some other Anglo-Saxon countries. Of course, that does not involve any change in the incidence of taxation and who pays tax. Although the Bill is not, as the Paymaster General said, exclusively about moving to plainer English, it is undoubtedly a


clearer statement of the law than we have had in the past, and is therefore welcome. Opening it at random, the first clause I came to was clause 344, which states:
A highway concession in respect of a road is to be treated as extended if—

(a) the person entitled to the concession takes up a renewed concession in respect of the whole or a part of the road, or
(b) that person or a person connected with him takes up a new concession in respect of—
(i) the whole or a part of the road, or
(ii) a road that includes the whole or a part of the road.

I do not query the fact that that is simpler than that which may have gone before. However, it is certainly difficult for a person of limited mental capacity such as myself to understand offhand. When I was a Minister, I had a rule that I would not read any submission from any official that contained a sentence with more than four lines. That clause is a single sentence of six lines. I am sorry that the Government do not go in for greater abbreviation of sentences in the procedure.
The third sense in which simplification is involved in the process concerns consolidation: bringing together provisions from a variety of different. Finance Acts so that it is easier for people to find their way round them. That had to be done, and it is a great and welcome advance. Of course, it means that we will need to go through the same process again when future changes are made, to consolidate those in the Bill. Simplification also makes the layout of the Bill more accessible, although, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I regret that the Government have not adopted the simpler numbering system, which the experts thought would make it far easier to keep track of the law and future changes in it.

Mr. Chope: The Bill now contains 76 chapters, which are not numbered in numerical order. It is therefore not possible to refer to a particular chapter without specifying the part of the Bill to which it refers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is confusing for people who read books and are used to chapters that start at number one and go to the end? Will he explain why the committee rejected that proposal?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Of course, I cannot answer on behalf of the Government. We shall have to wait for the winding-up speeches—which, I am sure, will be, fairly soon—for an explanation.
Will the Minister say whether it will be possible, under the procedures under which the Bill will be considered, for us to amend the Bill to include a different numbering system? Could we improve it as many experts outside the House want by introducing that numbering system and, if so, how would that be achieved? Although I suspect that it could well involve a complex set of amendments, that process would be worth while given that the Government have failed to undertake it. Obviously, the House would want to embark on it only if it were not persuaded by the Government that there were sensible reasons for not going down that route.

Mr. Jack: To pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made, the committee did not reject three-part numbering. The system

of producing our legislation did not enable it to be introduced. I refer my right hon. Friend to the final exposure draft of the new Bill, which is all laid out in three-part numbering.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that illumination of the genesis of the Bill. It is all the sadder, therefore, if the Bill was laid out in such a way that the experts outside, who will have to use it, found helpful, but subsequently remitted. I cannot understand why it is beyond the capacity of the House to insist that its legislation be numbered in a way that is convenient for the companies and tax experts outside this place endeavouring to comply with tax law.
The fourth sense of simplification is tidying up and sanding down rough edges. As I understood the Paymaster General, the measure has been introduced in that sense, which means that there can be slight changes in the incidence of taxation. Some people will pay more tax than previously and others less, but, as she said, the changes will be only minor and it is up to the House to decide what is minor and acceptable as minor in terms of the number of people affected and the change in the tax burden of any of those individuals or companies.
Finally, there is simplification in the sense of a change in the underlying tax structure to make that simpler. That, of course, will affect the incidence of taxation and it goes beyond what the Bill seeks to achieve and what the procedure under which it is being considered enables us to do. In deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading, we must decide whether the simplification that it incorporates, which involves the second, third and fourth senses of that word, is adequate or whether we should not bother to go down such a route because it would be more desirable to simplify either by making the Bill much briefer, terser and more succinct or, in the final sense, by changing the underlying tax structure so that it is easier for everybody to deal with.
Given that many individuals outside the House took part in the thorough consultation—the Minister paid tribute to the time and effort that outsiders have devoted to trying to complete the process of simplification—and draftsmen and people of great skill were involved in drawing up the Bill, we have to ask ourselves why, after all that effort, we have been left with such a hugely complex measure of 334 pages. The reason is twofold. The real world is complex. A lot of people assume that all the complexities in taxation result from the imagination of the House or our frequent returns to a particular subject, but, even if one wants matters to be simple, the real world is complex.
When I was Financial Secretary or slightly before—none the less, at some stage in my long and varied career at the Treasury—I said to officials, "Why can't we have a simple tax system of one tax rate, apply that to people's incomes less their expenditure and that's it? We need just a few clauses." The officials looked at me as they had obviously looked at countless generations of Financial Secretaries and Economic Secretaries who had made the same naive points and said, "Minister, how do you define income?" Of course that raises the question whether income includes gambling income, lottery income, benefit income, gifts or rebates and refunds. What moneys should be included? That simple question leads to immense complexity of definition.
I see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as if I am about to elaborate. Of course, I am not. I merely point out that, whatever part of the tax system we try to define, contact with the real world is likely to lead to complexities. We in the House cannot avoid that, but we can add layers to the complexity of the real world by imposing further necessary or unnecessary complexities. Above all, if policy pursues several objectives, it will find itself making several distinctions. Every time we make a distinction, we come up against the complexities in the real world and add a few dozen clauses to our Bill.
Much of that accounts for the complexity of legislation in this area, which the draftsmen have done their best to smooth down, but they cannot eliminate it if they retain the underlying conflicting and varied objectives that are incorporated in legislation on capital allowances.
It is only worth going through the process that is before us and putting the Bill on the statute book, in what may be a mildly amended form after its consideration in Committee, if there is no hope of a more radical simplification of the capital allowance structure.
Even minor simplifications as are incorporated in the Bill have costs. Practitioners will find the new system easier to use in the long run, but they will have to become familiar with it first. They will begin by being familiar with the present unnecessarily complicated legislation. Costs will be incurred in going through new legislation, repulping advisory books and bringing handbooks up to date, for example, to ensure that they deal with the proposed legislation.
It is worth doing that for the comparatively minor gains in terms of the simplicity of tax law that the Bill incorporates only if it is not possible to move more radically into a simplification of the entire structure of capital allowances.
The present system, which is incorporated in the Bill, is in large measure the system as simplified by Lord Lawson of Blaby when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He sought through a series of reforms to introduce lower tax rates by extending the tax base by simplifying and eliminating where possible, or reducing the value of, allowances of all sorts. In his first endeavour to deal with capital allowances—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill's purpose is to restate the law relating to capital allowances with minor changes. It is not a vehicle to debate policy on capital allowances, except the extent to which the Bill fulfils the purpose set out in its title.

Mr. Lilley: I entirely take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My argument is whether it is worth voting yes or no on that issue. We should vote yes only if there is not a better alternative. We must ascertain whether the structure of the present tax system allows for an alternative. Many would say that there is no possibility of a better alternative and we should vote for the Bill as it stands, but I would argue that there is scope. This is one of the few areas of the tax system where a proposal could sensibly be put forward for radical simplification, which would render the Bill unnecessary.
When the then Chancellor of the Exchequer created the present system in the 1980s, he put the tax treatment of capital allowances in line with what company accounting systems do for capital expenditures—or at least more in line than they had been initially. When he did so, it was difficult for anyone to argue against taking that course. If companies calculate their profits, which they declare in their annual reports, by subtracting depreciation, whatever it is, and an eighth of their capital expenditure on a particular asset each year from their revenues, surely it is reasonable for the tax man to calculate the profits liable to tax on the same basis. That was the argument then, and it is, in effect, the argument incorporated in the Bill.
Companies had no argument against that. They were left speechless when the Chancellor came up with the proposal, even though many of them that had previously enjoyed 100 per cent. capital allowances did not like it. Opposition was rather muted at that time to the changes which we are, in effect, enshrining again in this legislation.
However, there was an alternative answer to that rhetorical question. When companies report in their accounts to their shareholders, they try to provide a measure against which their performance in managing their assets can be judged. They spread their expenditures on their assets over the life of those assets, so that they can be judged on how well they are extracting profit from them, and so that there are no ups and downs in the reported profits, according to the years in which assets were purchased.
Taxes, however, should reflect a company's ability to pay tax. That depends how much money it has coming in, as opposed to how much money it has going out. Taxes should reflect the tax flow of the company, rather than how it reports for the purposes of assessing how efficiently it is managing its assets. When a company invests in assets, it temporarily has less money. Subsequently, when the assets generate revenues, the company has more money to pay tax, and it is reasonable to tax it accordingly.
If we were to return to a cashflow basis of assessing the taxation of companies, that would remove the need for many of the distinctions that are incorporated in, and account for, page upon page of the Bill. Yet that is how all other items of expenditure are assessed and treated for tax purposes. We do not think that there is anything anomalous about a 100 per cent. allowance—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has decided that the Bill should be proceeded with as a tax simplification Bill. The House is bound by that procedure, the consequence of which is that the House must consider the Bill, the limited purpose of which the House is well aware. The wider considerations of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks relate to matters beyond the limited purpose of the Bill. I advise him now to return to that limited purpose.

Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not suggest that we could or should distort the procedures under which we are operating to bring at out greater changes which I may think desirable and the House may think desirable, but which we cannot incorporate in the Bill.
Before we decide to give our assent to the Bill under those procedures, we should be aware that all the complexities that exist in it—

Mr. Mike Hall: That has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Lilley: I am speaking rather differently from the way in which I was speaking previously.
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am responding to a sedentary intervention from the usually speechless Whip, who thought that I was reverting to proposals to introduce a cashflow system of treatment of capital allowances. I have moved on from that point.

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Is it in order that he should continually be interrupted by sedentary interventions, which are diverting him from his clarity and train of thought?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already called the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) to order, and suggested to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) that he limit his remarks to the purpose of the debate.

Mr. Lilley: We must recognise that chapter after chapter of the Bill—admirable though it is for the clarity of its language and the consolidation of the previous legislation, which was scattered among various Finance Bills—exist to make distinctions between buildings and plant and machinery, between software and hardware, between cars and other vehicles, between short and long-life assets, between hired, leased and bought assets, and between ships and offshore facilities. Those distinctions, which require complex legislation, are the result of policy decisions to discriminate between different classes of assets. If we go ahead with this measure, we shall enshrine those distinctions and discriminations, albeit in a clearer and more lucid form. Alternatively, we could abolish them and save ourselves the trouble of an unnecessary Bill. That would save the tax profession from having to adapt to a Bill that will subsequently be overtaken by further Bills that will render it unnecessary.
We must recognise that all attempts to simplify legislation, of which this measure is a laudable example, are constrained or affected by one of the Lawson's laws of taxation. The more onerous the burden of tax, the more complexities have to be incorporated in the legislation. The more onerous the burden, the more necessary it is to have loopholes and easements where the shoe pinches too tightly, and the greater the political pressures to incorporate special concessions for the more powerful interest groups that are affected by the burden of tax.
If our aim is genuine simplification, we should not only rewrite legislation, but get the burden of tax down. If we reduce the burden of tax and the rates of tax—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Yet again I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the limits to the debate. It is not about taxation policy.

Mr. Lilley: I am particularly grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it enables me to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion, as I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily.

Mr. Forth: There are plenty more of us still to come.

Mr. Lilley: I want to hear what other Members have to say.
The measure is good as far as it goes, but it will impose costs on people who will have to adapt to it. It is a missed opportunity for the Government to move towards simpler taxation. They will get simpler taxation only if they reduce the tax burden. Sadly, we shall not get that from the Labour party. We shall have to wait for a general election, a change of Government and a change of philosophy. We shall then get simpler taxation.

Mr. McWalter: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that many of his assertions are deeply contestable. We could have a tax rate of 90p in the pound, which would involve just one side of A4 paper.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he, too, should confine his remarks to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Lilley: I shall make my response to the hon. Gentleman doubly brief. I am delighted to contest a point with him—when he stood against me he lost. We could have a 90 per cent. rate, but the only time we did so was for the petroleum revenue tax. We only have to consider how complex that was to realise the validity of the point that I was making in my closing remarks.
I now happily hand over the baton to other hon. Members to elucidate the importance of the Bill.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I thought that I would welcome large chunks of the Bill, but I have had the great benefit—nay privilege—of listening to important and powerful contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They said that we were being invited to believe that there could be a rewrite project that would merely simplify existing primary legislation, such that no substantive change to that existing law would take place in the process of the rewrite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, combining simplification with not changing substantive tax law might be a trick that could not be achieved. The more we meditate on that conundrum, the more we recognise the potential inadequacies of the Bill.
I have some experience of the thought processes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was decided to proceed with the rewrite—and, indeed, of the thought processes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I had the honour of being a special adviser to the Treasury in 1995–96. We also benefited from the wisdom and sage advice of the tax specialist adviser, Mr. Edward Troup, now renowned in his new incarnation as a tax commentator and practitioner of great distinction with Messrs Simmons and Simmons in the City of London.
When the decision was made formally in December 1996 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, following the Inland Revenue's report "The Path to Tax Simplification", published in December


1995, the feeling was that we wanted shorter, nimbler drafting. We wanted to deregulate the tax regime in so far as it related to all types to taxation, but particularly as it related to capital allowance taxation.
The decision to proceed with the rewrite was, I think, a great tribute to the deregulatory instincts of the then Chancellor, his Ministers and, indeed, every other member of the Government. I well remember the objectives of the rewrite that has resulted in this Bill. The aim was to achieve a more logical structure in rewritten tax legislation, involving shorter sentences, briefer, more lucid definitions—indeed, better definitions—and more modern language.

Mr. Redwood: Ah! Modernisation.

Mr. Ruffley: I fancy that hints of new Labour lay behind that sedentary intervention, but there is nothing wrong with modernisation in its proper context. I trust that, when my right hon. and learned Friend decided to modernise language via the tax rewrite project, he used the term "modernisation" in the best, Conservative sense, and not in the degraded sense in which Labour Members choose to use it.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend brings considerable interest and expertise to the debate, knowing the attitude of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he initiated the process. Was our right hon. and learned Friend saying at that stage that he hoped that 903 pages of legislation, annexes and explanatory notes would result, just for the purpose of capital allowances? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the kind of simplification and condensation that he had in mind, or would he have been a little disappointed that we have 903 pages before us now?

Mr. Ruffley: I have always hesitated to speak for my right hon. and learned Friend before consulting him first, but I venture to suggest that my right hon. Friend is right in surmising that he would be gravely disappointed at the outcome of the rewrite project that he set in train in December 1996, which has resulted in the considerable weight and density of documentation with which we are dealing now.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe would be surprised that the proposition to which we are invited to assent is that the tax rewrite project could indeed result in changes, albeit minor, to the substantive effect of pre-existing tax legislation. We have already had an extensive debate about the meaning of a minor change, but, so far as I am aware, what was not in the contemplation of Ministers in 1996 was that the tax rewrite project could make substantive changes to pre-existing tax law. Therefore, I am greatly surprised—I put it no higher than that—that the Bill purports to permit exactly that: substantive changes to pre-existing primary tax legislation.
The Bill relates merely to capital allowances, but we have various treats in store. We have already been advised that the tax rewrite project will begin with the Bill, but it is but part of a suite, if you will, of tax rewrite Bills. We are led to believe that there will be a first income tax

Bill, which I am told will come on stream at the end of 2002, relating to employment income and possibly social security income and pension income; and a second income tax Bill, which will come on stream at the end of 2003, relating to trading income, property income, savings and investment income. They will all be subject to the same terms of the rewrite. Those terms will be arbitrated over and scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills, where—I am sorry to have to report it again—the scrutiny will be to see whether each tax simplification Bill
preserves the effect of the existing law,
with the killer words
subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
There we have it. There we have the concern, brilliantly and powerfully exposed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for Bromley and Chislehurst. I do not believe that, in this debate, we have had an adequate reply to the concern expressed in relation to that point.
I return to the original purpose of the tax rewrite project, which was initiated in December 1996. The ambition of the project was brilliantly and amusingly summed up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe in his Budget speech. He referred to it as a project that was
as ambitious as translating the whole of "War and Peace" into lucid Swahili. In fact, it is more ambitious … "War and Peace" is only 1,500 pages long. Inland Revenue tax law is 6,000 pages long and was not written by a Tolstoy. —[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 170.]
That was an elegant and lucid description of the scale and magnitude of the ambition behind the tax rewrite project—an ambition that has been sadly degraded by the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude during his introductory remarks, but he should confine his remarks to the Bill and, as I have stated on more than one occasion, to its very narrow purpose.

Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that typically helpful guidance.
The need for a tax rewrite in capital allowances was first flagged up in a very important article in the 11 August 1986 edition of the Financial Times. That report drew attention to the provisions of the Finance Act 1986 on capital allowances—which are the subject of the Bill—and to what was regarded as vitriolic comment from accountants and solicitors, who were irritated by the 1986 Act's length and some of its capital allowances provisions.
The newspaper quoted one paragraph of schedule 13 of the 1986 Act—on capital allowances for mineral extraction, which is dealt with in the Bill—as a classic example of incomprehensible and unacceptable drafting.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret once more to have to remind the hon. Gentleman about the very narrow scope of this debate.

Mr. Ruffley: I am most grateful for your further guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that the references to schedule 13 of the 1986 Act—which I


believe is being consolidated in the Bill—would make my previous remarks, and the ones that I was about to make, in order. If that is not so, I am sure that you will correct me once again.

Mr. McWalter: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by asking simply whether he thinks that the Bill will simplify or further complicate the law on mineral extraction capital allowances—yes or no?

Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, we do not know whether this consolidation measure will change the substantive law on mineral extraction and on capital allowances in relation to mineral extraction. That is very much an open question which has not been answered to my satisfaction.

Mr. McWalter: We have had complaints about the Capital Allowances Bill annex, which is more than 200 pages and clearly specifies the Bill's very minor changes to mineral extraction capital allowances.

Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to that point. What we cannot know, however, is whether very clever silks and lawyers, in litigation and all manner of tortuous processes, will eventually take a different view on the issues from that of the annex's drafters. I am the first to admit that, on the face of it, if we are to believe the documents with which we have been provided, the changes to the capital allowances regime for mineral extraction as outlined in the 1986 Act and consolidated in the Bill may well be minor.
Litigation, however, is a marvellous thing. It is the glory of the English legal system and enables common law to be created in a living way. It also allows clever solicitors and barristers and their clients to test the law whenever and wherever they can. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to examine as closely as we can whether the changes are in fact minor.
On the hon. Gentleman's reasonable point about whether the Bill simplifies the law, the measure may achieve the objective of simplifying the capital allowances regime for mineral extraction. However, to explore whether that is correct, I shall read out the non-consolidated version of the relevant provision by parliamentary draftsmen in the Finance Act 1986. That may give the House a flavour of the sheer, unacceptable complexity of the system, which the Bill tries to rectify.
Schedule 13(12)(4) of the 1986 Act states:
If, in a case where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 above applies, neither sub-paragraph (1) nor sub-paragraph (2) above has effect in relation to the expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of that paragraph, then for the chargeable period related to the disposal or cessation referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of that paragraph, any allowance in respect of that expenditure shall be a balancing allowance.
That is an example not of the gobbledegook that hon. Members speak, but of that that was inflicted on the House during the passage of the 1986 Act. One marvels at the way in which some of that convoluted drafting got through in the first place. The Bill tries, and may even succeed, in simplifying the capital allowances regime for mineral rights. Its provisions may therefore receive a qualified welcome.
However, I wondered whether there was a case for believing that the tax rewrite and simplification that we are considering would be more welcome as a result of self-assessment. Hon. Members may wonder about the connection between those subjects. The answer is not difficult to find. Self-assessment was announced in the March 1993 Budget by my noble Friend Lord Lamont. It was to apply in 1996–97. Self-assessment is important for tax simplification for the reasons that he gave at the time. When he was Chancellor, he argued that self-assessment should provide a reduction in bureaucracy but that, more important, it should emphasise the link between public spending and the burden—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is straying into the realms of tax policy. We are dealing with a motion on the Capital Allowances Bill.

Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful for your unfailing assiduity in ensuring that I keep in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely attempting to show a clear link between a self-assessment regime, which requires greater transparency and simplicity to operate effectively, and the measure that we are considering. Many of my constituents are small and medium business men and women. They have occasion to calculate their tax liability because of self-assessment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there is any relation between that and the motion. I ask the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on the motion.

Mr. Lilley: Am I correct in suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who knows much more about self-assessment—and probably the tax system—than me, believes that individuals making their self-assessment will need to refer to the Bill to make the proper assessment? If so, wonderfully lucid though the measure is in comparison with existing law, it remains a terrifying thought that people will have to master the Bill to get their taxes right.

Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend has it. That was the point I was trying to make—inelegantly, as it turned out, because I attracted the strictures of Madam Deputy Speaker, which I did not wish to do. Those who have to pay and who must make calculations about the capital allowance regime and its availability to their businesses do, under self-assessment, have a bigger vested interest in simplified legislation on capital allowances than before. That is why the Bill is so terribly important in the context of self-assessment to so many business men and women who have to calculate their capital allowances. The Bill will not assist them.

Dawn Primarolo: Why did the previous Government decide—I refer to the report on the legislative procedure for tax simplification Bills—that the direct tax law simplification project was to
rewrite direct tax legislation … and to make minor changes of substance where that is required to facilitate simplification?
The previous Government also introduced self-assessment. What point is the hon. Gentleman trying to make?

Mr. Ruffley: The Paymaster General is being uncharacteristically obtuse. The second point is perfectly


obvious; self-assessment puts greater burdens on individual taxpayers, whether corporate or not. The Bill proposes to make life easier for them by having a simpler capital allowance regime. As to the first point, I was not a member of the last Conservative Government and I would not even venture to suggest what was going through the minds of those who were.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 14.

Division No. 53]
[11.17 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coaker, Vernon


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coleman, Iain


Atherton, Ms Candy
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Corston, Jean


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Battle, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Dawson, Hilton


Best, Harold
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burnett, John
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gidley, Sandra


Chapman, Ben (Wirnal S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godsrff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John





Hendrick, Mark
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hepburn, Stephen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Heppell, John
Öpik, Lembit


Hinchliffe, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Home Robertson, John
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pollard, Kerry


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hurst, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jamieson, David
Rammell, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Joyce, Eric
Rendel, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kemp, Fraser
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sanders, Adrian


Lepper, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Leslie, Christopher
Savidge, Malcolm


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Linton, Martin
Singh, Marsha


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Steinberg, Gerry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNulty, Tony
Stringer, Graham


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McWalter, Tony
Stunell, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mallaber, Judy



Marsden, Gordon (Backpool S)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Merron, Gillian
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Todd, Mark


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tynan, Bill



Walley, Ms Joan


Mountford, Kali
Ward, Ms Claire


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Watts, David






Webb, Steve
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Gummer, Rt Hon John



Hayes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Christopher Chope and


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. David Ruffley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 0.

Division No. 54]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick



Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Bailey, Adrian
Clwyd, Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Iain


Battle, John
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Jean


Begg, Miss Anne
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Best, Harold
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Day, Stephen


Bradshaw, Ben
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Burnett, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive



Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ellman, Mrs Louise



Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fearn, Ronnie


Cann, Jamie
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Flynn, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chaytor, David
Foulkes, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry





George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Gidley, Sandra
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Goggins, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Merron, Gillian


Gray, James
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Grieve, Dominic
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mitchell, Austin


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hanson, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Hayes, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Healey, John



Hendrick, Mark
Mountford, Kali


Hepburn, Stephen
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hinchliffe, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Öpik, Lembit


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hope, Phil
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hopkins, Kelvin
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Joyce, Eric
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rendel, David


Kemp, Fraser
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Khabra, Piara S



Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs Barbara


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Ruffley, David


Lepper, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Sanders, Adrian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sedgemore, Brian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Singh, Marsha


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)



McCafferty, Ms Chris



McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Spellar, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Squire, Ms Rachel


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNulty, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard






Stringer, Graham
Tyler, Paul


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tynan, Bill


Stunell, Andrew

Walley, Ms Joan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Webb, Steve


Temple-Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Winnick, David


Todd, Mark
Woolas, Phil


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wray, James


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Capital Allowances Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances.—[Mr. Pope.]
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 0.

Division No. 55]
[11.42 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainger, Nick
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Atherton, Ms Candy
Buck, Ms Karen


Atkins, Charlotte
Burden, Richard


Bailey, Adrian
Burgon, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Burnett, John


Banks, Tony
Butler, Mrs Christine


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Begg, Miss Anne
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chope, Christopher


Best, Harold
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blizzard, Bob



Borrow, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)





Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clelland, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Clwyd, Ann
Kemp, Fraser


Coaker, Vernon
Khabra, Piara S


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cohen, Harry
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Coleman, Iain
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Colman, Tony
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Corston, Jean
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Cotter, Brian
Laxton, Bob


Cousins, Jim
Lepper, David


Crausby, David
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Levitt, Tom


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Dalyell, Tam
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Darvill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lock, David


Dawson, Hilton
Love, Andrew


Dean, Mrs Janet
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dobbin, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Donohoe, Brian H
Macdonald, Calum


Doran, Frank
McDonnell, John


Dowd, Jim
McFall, John


Drew, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McNamara, Kevin



Ellman, Mrs Louise
McNulty, Tony


Etherington, Bill
Mactaggart, Fiona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McWalter, Tony


Fisher, Mark
Mallaber, Judy


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gardiner, Barry
Merron, Gillian


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Miller, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Mitchell, Austin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moffatt, Laura


Goggins, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gray, James
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gummer, Rt Hon John



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mountford, Kali


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hayes, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Healey, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hendrick, Mark
Öpik, Lembit


Hepburn, Stephen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heppell, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hinchliffe, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pollard, Kerry


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hurst, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jamieson, David
Rammell, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Joyce, Eric
Rendel, David






Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tyler, Paul


Singh, Marsha
Tynan, Bill


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Worthington, Tony


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. David Ruffley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Human Rights (Joint Committee)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));


(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time: and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.



As I told the House last Session on 30 November, in volume 357, column 1226 of Hansard, the motion fulfils the Government's commitment to invite Parliament to establish a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That commitment has been widely welcomed. The Lords have agreed to a remit for the Joint Committee and, once again, I invite the Commons to agree that remit.


The Committee's terms of reference give it a wide power to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom. It will also have a specific duty to consider and report on remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Contrary to the impression that some Members may have, the Human Rights Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty. The courts will have no power to strike down primary legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with rights under the European convention on human rights. Instead, they will be able to declare that legislation is incompatible with the convention rights. It will be up to Parliament to decide what action, if any, should be taken following a declaration of incompatibility.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister tell us what will happen if the courts rule that a matter is incompatible, but Parliament decides to take no action? Where will that leave matters?

Mr. Tipping: That will be entirely a matter for Parliament to decide at the appropriate time. The business will be brought before the House and Parliament will take a decision on what it wishes to do. One will have to make a decision in the light of the individual judgment at that time.

Mr. John Redwood: I thought that legislation introduced in the House that is drafted on the Government's behalf always states now that it is compliant with the human rights legislation. Is the Minister telling us that he and perhaps his colleagues are introducing legislation that does not make that guarantee, as they accept that the ECHR may be lacking in some areas?

Mr. Tipping: When we introduce legislation, we will introduce a statement of compatibility. That is standard practice at the moment, and we will continue it.

Mr. John Gummer: Is the Minister saying that, were the Government to introduce incompatible legislation, they would put a note at the beginning of the Bill stating that—or would they merely leave a gap?

Mr. Tipping: We shall introduce legislation that is compatible with the Human Rights Act. There will be a statement at the beginning of a Bill—Members are familiar with the procedure—to say that it is compatible.
Remedial orders, if sought, will follow roughly the same pattern as deregulation orders. Normally, a proposal will be laid and consulted on, during which time the Committee can report. Then a draft order will be laid, which may or may not incorporate any amendments suggested by the Committee. The Committee will report on the draft order. There is also provision, in cases of urgency, for made orders, which have the effect of law immediately, to be laid before Parliament for approval and for amendments to be made to those orders if necessary, taking into account any report by the Committee. So the Human Rights Committee is expected to play a role in examining remedial orders very similar to that played by

the Deregulation Committee on deregulation orders. It is not known how frequently such remedial orders will be made; I hope and it is hoped that they will be rare. However, whether they are made rarely or not, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to provide Parliament with an expert opinion on them.
The motion also contains the Standing Order that will give the Committee its powers. The Committee is expected to have six Members from each House, on the model of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It will have the powers commonly given to Select Committees plus a power to exchange papers with other Committees. However, because of its United Kingdom remit, it is not proposed that it should have a general power to travel. Rather, it will be permitted to make up to four visits a year to the institutions of the Council of Europe, the body responsible for the European convention on human rights.
Last November, some hon. Members expressed concern that the Committee would add to parliamentary bureaucracy. I was surprised that parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive should be considered bureaucratic, and I am hard put to think of Committees that could be fairly called so. It will be for the Committee itself to determine its subjects of inquiry and methods of working. I trust that it will be effective and influential in ensuring that Parliament continues its scrutiny of human rights. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Opposition can welcome a great deal—

Mr. Forth: No we cannot.

Mr. Grieve: Well, the official Opposition can, and I must tell my right hon. Friend that he will doubtless have an opportunity to express his reservations, which I am sure he will do pithily. I shall listen extremely carefully. In the meantime, I can tell the Minister that the thrust of the proposal is welcomed.

Mr. Forth: What?

Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I can explain why. Doubtless my right hon. Friend will wish to listen to my explanation.
Whatever view one may take about the merits of having incorporated the European convention on human rights into our law, the fact remains that the interplay between judicial decisions and the role of the House will be extremely important. Many of my hon. Friends who spoke during the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 expressed concern about the dangers of Parliament being overridden. As I see it, far from the proposed Joint Committee contributing to that, it should provide a powerful mechanism to ensure that Parliament would have an input in the event of the judiciary reaching decisions—whether in respect of statutory instruments or of primary legislation—adverse to the apparent intention of a Minister or of the House and on which it could comment.

Mr. Gummer: I speak as an enthusiast for European co-operation, as my hon. Friend knows, but I am worried. It would be all very well post hoc to be able to have such


a discussion, but it appears that the Government will not put before Parliament anything that might be in contradistinction with the convention. It may be that Parliament might wish to agree something ab initio that is contrary to the convention. It appears that Parliament will not be in a position so to do. Am I right on that?

Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend's comments fall into two different categories. First, he talks of the possibility of matters being determined that are thought to be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is abundantly clear that the House retains sovereignty. In that sense, in the event of the judiciary deciding that a piece of primary legislation is incompatible with the Act—notwithstanding that, and having considered the matter carefully—we can determine that we do not want to amend such legislation. If the House so decides in those circumstances, that is the end of the matter; albeit the option might still remain to an individual to take his case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has been done for the past 30 or 40 years. I forget the period over which—

Mr. Tipping: Fifty years.

Mr. Grieve: I think that the Minister is correct. We have come to the 50th anniversary, or close to it, although I think that it was slightly later that the right to direct appeal was ratified by the House.
The second matter is whether we wish to introduce legislation that is, or might be, contrary to the Human Rights Act. The House might decide that it wishes to put it on the statute book. I understand that in those circumstances—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there is nothing to prevent us so doing. It would then be for somebody to mount a challenge in the courts to get them to rule that that legislation was incompatible with the Act. At that point, we would then decide whether we wished to agree that.

Mr. Redwood: Surely the Government are saying that they will try to ensure that any legislation that they introduce is not incompatible, given the rights and wrongs of the case. Were they to make a mistake, they would try to use the procedures that are before us to remedy the matter immediately. Surely that implies that in effect decisions will be made by justices in the faraway court rather than by Parliament.

Mr. Grieve: First, I have some doubts whether the imprimatur that appears on many pieces of legislation stating that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act will turn out to be the case. Since the Act has come into operation, I have been extremely concerned that far from it being the baseline for the establishment of rights, as one might have expected, it seems to have been used at times as an excuse for ratcheting down people's rights on the basis that it may still be possible to comply with the Act. That is a worrying development.
The abolition of trial by jury for certain categories of offences, for example, has been justified on the basis that that is compatible with the Act.

Mr. Gummer: Hunting.

Mr. Grieve: I hear my right hon. Friend say "Hunting". That will prove to be an interesting issue. I have serious

reservations about the compatibility of the legislation on hunting that we shall be considering on Wednesday—or at least one option with which we shall be presented—with the Human Rights Act. That will have to be considered at a later stage.
It is because I have these anxieties that I can broadly welcome the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses, which will have an opportunity to provide some input on these matters. If I have a reservation about the motion, it is that there is some uncertainty—I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarification—about the scope of paragraph (3)(b), which reads:
and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
That suggests to me that it is only in the event of a draft order or a remedial proposal being laid before the Joint Committee that the Committee can start thinking more widely about the problem or the topic presented to it, and that the Joint Committee will not be able to comment more generally on the way in which human rights are developing and on the way in which the Government may, for example, be using the Human Rights Act, as I suggested earlier, to restrict rather than enlarge people's rights.

Mr. Tipping: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee has wide powers, including powers to initiate action. I draw his attention to paragraph (4), which states that
the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
That is wide enough to allow the Committee to do virtually what it wants.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept that, with a little ingenuity, that should be possible. However, reading the text with a lawyer's eye suggests that until such a matter has been brought before the Committee, it will not be able to initiate proactively consideration of the way in which the Human Rights Act is progressing. Doubtless, that is a matter to which we can return. If the Committee is successful in its remit, and if it finds that it is being hindered by the wording of the order, I hope that the House will be able to revisit the matter.
It is extremely important that we should get regular reports from the Committee, stating how it sees the interplay between the role of the judiciary and the legislature and whether Parliament is working, so as to ensure that, as was argued during the passage of Act, the Act is seen not as a creature of the judiciary, but as evidence of active participation by the House in trying to ensure human rights.

Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He seems to be making a case in defence of the motion on the basis of his anxiety about the likelihood of the Government bringing before the House measures that contradict the human rights legislation. However, the Minister specifically said that the Government will not bring such measures before the House, so my hon. Friend's anxiety is not shared by the Minister. What, in my hon. Friend's view, is the reason why the Minister is introducing the legislation?

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am rather prepared to accept the Minister's word that he,


and even the Government, do not wish to infringe the Human Rights Act that they put on the statute book. Without wishing to resort to prophecy, I must tell the Minister that I consider it very likely that in years to come it will turn out that Governments, including his own, succeed in doing exactly that. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the Committee is a good idea.
I had reservations about a number of pieces of legislation, as I mentioned. For example, the legislation that we passed in haste after the Omagh bombings has fortunately never been used, but if an attempt were ever made to use it, it might well fall foul of the scrutiny of the courts in respect of human rights criteria. The Government seem to be aware of that, as no attempt has been made to use the legislation.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he tell us at some stage in his remarks why he favours a Joint Committee with the House of Lords? What is wrong with each of the Houses of Parliament undertaking its own scrutiny and consideration in its unique and distinctive way? Why does my hon. Friend subscribe to the current fetish for Joint Committees with the Lords?

Mr. Grieve: I have never considered myself a fetishist, but, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I believe that that Committee, which meets Members of the other place, benefits from the input that can be provided by Members of both Houses. I have little doubt that the nature of the Committee and the fact that its remit will be to scrutinise the activities of the Executive make a Joint Committee appropriate. After all, the Joint Committee may report what it likes, but it will ultimately be for this House to decide whether it accepts the Committee's report or wants to take its own view on the matter—my right hon. Friend is a prime example of someone who extols the privileges and rights of the House. I do not see how that prevents a Joint Committee from coming up with sensible reports and suggestions.
A number of people have been nominated to serve on the Committee. The official Opposition are happy with the names that have been proposed. We hope that they will be able to provide the scrutiny that is needed.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend and I do not want to pre-empt the next debate, which I am sure will be lively and quite lengthy, but is he saying on behalf of the official Opposition that he is content for parliamentary private secretaries to be members of a Committee that is to take the form of a Select Committee and scrutinise legislation?

Mr. Grieve: Doubtless I will be corrected if I have got it wrong, but my understanding is that no parliamentary private secretaries will serve on this Committee.

Mr. Tipping: I confirm that that is the case.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation.
I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. I simply want to conclude with this thought. The operation of the Human Rights Act will undoubtedly be controversial. Many people have serious reservations

about aspects of the way in which it will work. Indeed, if evidence from my activities as a member of the council of Justice is anything to go by, there has been a backlash against the nature of the Act, and that is perfectly understandable in view of some of the developments that have taken place. That makes it all the more important for the House to have access to sensible and considered reports on its operation, and I hope that the Committee succeeds in keeping the House informed and enabling the operation of the Human Rights Act to remain principally the responsibility of Parliament, especially this House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am glad to contribute briefly to the debate, because I share the view of the Minister and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the Committee potentially has an extremely important role to play. I want to identify some potential weaknesses in that role under the motion.
The motion has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time, and, during that period, we have had an opportunity to examine its significance. However, a measure of its potential effectiveness has not been well established in relation to the other important scrutiny Committees of the House: the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. Those Committee are true Select Committees, by which I mean that their membership is from the broad church of the House and their chairmanship is from the Opposition. That has given added significance to reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and that tradition is being faithfully replicated in the Environmental Audit Committee, which is a comparatively new Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that we should follow that pattern in this case.
Our amendment has not been selected, but it is extremely relevant to the effectiveness of the Committee in scrutinising important issues, if that is to be its role. The independence of this Joint Committee is at the heart of our debate.

Mr. Peter Lilley: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful if he would respond to a point about that very issue of independence. Surely the whole function of the Committee is to do the court's work for it: it is to put the court's ruling into parliamentary language. Far from the Committee's being independent, this is the first time we have established a Committee to take orders from a court on what legislation should be put before the House.

Mr. Tyler: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's constitutional experience and expertise, but I do not think that that is the Committee's proper role. I think that, strictly speaking, it will play a traditional parliamentary role, which is not to take the place of the courts but to scrutinise the preparation of legislation by the Government of the day, and to seek as far as possible to ensure that it is compatible with the law as it stands—law that we have passed in the House. If that is challenged, it will go to the courts. That, surely, is a secondary rather than a primary stage.
I want to concentrate briefly on the way in which the Committee is to be set up. While perfectly proper reservations have already been expressed about the fact


that this will be a Joint Committee, the terms in which the House of Lords has constituted its membership are clearly relevant. I hope that the Minister will explain why the motion tabled in the other place is significantly different from the motion that we are discussing. For example—unless a change was made, and the motion eventually passed differs from the draft that I saw—the House of Lords passed subsection (5), which proposed
That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Why does our own motion not contain such a provision? Are the Government afraid to include one on our Order Paper?
The Government seem to have an odd preoccupation. They appear to be determined—in contrast to the well-established and useful convention applying to other scrutiny Committees—to appoint a Chair from their own ranks. Members may feel that I am over-sensitive, but I think that there is good reason to be sensitive.
Waiting to take part in the debate, while others spoke at length on other matters, I read The Parliamentary Monitor's information digest for January 2001, which has just reached us. It is usually an extremely reliable source, and I pay tribute to those who prepare it. The first item, headed "Political News", states:
Paul Goggins, Labour MP for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, has been appointed PPS to the Education and Employment Secretary, David Blunkett. Goggins replaces Jean Corston MP following her nomination as Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Human Rights.
That is an affront to the House. We have not even appointed the members of the Committee yet. I make no comment about the admirable qualities of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston): I am sure that, should she be appropriate for this task, she will fulfil it with zeal, consistency and commitment. However, the announcement was made before the House of Commons had decided who should be on the Committee, and whether it should be set up at all.
Why has this happened? Let me take the House back to some simple arithmetic. The other place does not have a majority of Government Members; therefore, there will be no automatic Government majority in the appointment of its six Committee members. This House—which, as we all know, contains at least three major parties and some minor parties—has a slightly different arithmetic composition. But if six and six are put together to make 12, it is possible, as things stand, that there will be no Government majority on the Joint Committee, and that the only way in which the Government can secure a majority will be by securing the Chair.
Not only do I believe that that is precisely what the Government are about; I believe it to constitute an affront to the House, and a total misunderstanding of the Committee's role. If the Committee will be as important as the Minister has said, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, and as the Members who are present in such vast numbers obviously realise, it would be outrageous if the scrutiny of legislation that will come before us were subjected to such petty party political considerations. As has already been pointed out, the Committee cannot take executive action. It will have to come back to the House and, indeed, to the other place in making its recommendations, so the primacy of the Commons is not affected by the Committee Chair, but, if the Committee starts on that party political basis, its independence seems to be doomed from the beginning.
It is important that the Committee should be given a fair wind. It should do its job effectively in scrutinising the material that will come before it as a result of the remit that it has been given and the House's decisions in the past, but it is not right that the Government should effectively hamper the Committee's work by insisting on appointing the Chair. That seems to be the case. It would be utterly wrong.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I warmly endorse the remarks by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the manner in which the Government have gone about the appointment of the Committee, particularly its chairmanship. I do not cast any personal aspersions on the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), but I hope that, as a parliamentarian, she will accept that it is not honourable for us to have to read in some lobbyists' journal that the powers that be have nominated her before anyone in the House knows anything about it. Even tonight, we would know nothing about it had it not been published in The Parliamentary Monitor.

Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I am an avid reader of The Parliamentary Monitor. I have not had an opportunity to review it tonight, but the appointment of the Chairman of the Committee will be a matter for the Committee itself. Whatever The Parliamentary Monitor says, that is a fact.

Mr. Forth: Pull the other one.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Minister knows, I have a lot of respect and affection for him. He is an extremely diligent Minister. He always seeks to inform the House, but I say in the kindest possible way I can that one is inclined to take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
How come that lobbying organisation—that is what these journals are—has been spun the story? Is it lying? Will the Government press office machinery go into action first thing in the morning to denounce the publication, saying that it has got it completely wrong, that it is a matter for the House and that the Government are deeply offended that the magazine should have thought that they had any intention of pre-empting the decision of Parliament or, in this case, of a parliamentary Committee.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst?

Mr. Forth: Perhaps the acid test is whether the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) did resign as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If they did, was that the first half of the deal to which the Minister will, unusually dishonourably, not admit but on which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has put his finger?

Mr. Howarth: That seems to be the case. The information on the basis of which we on the Conservative


Benches are acting is based on the reference material to hand, which is "Dod's Parliamentary Companion." The one that I have just been looking at is published for the year 2001. We have only just entered 2001, so the information upon which we are working is the latest available information. It suggests that my right hon. Friend is right and that those hon. Members did resign from those positions knowing full well that the Whips Office had told them, "You resign and you will get a nice little number."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is a danger that the House, led perhaps inadvertently by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, is moving into the area covered by the next motion on the Order Paper. If the House continues much more on those lines, obviously, the occupant of the Chair will take a severe view as to the length of debate on the next matter.

Mr. Howarth: That is an entirely fair point. I shall not proceed any further in dealing with the matter, except perhaps to take an intervention on it from the hon. Member for North Cornwall.

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Lilley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: I should give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, as I am due to visit his constituency at the weekend. I am looking forward to it, and I should not like to upset him in advance.

Mr. Tyler: I shall try to ensure that the weather is polite to the hon. Gentleman. The reference in The Parliamentary Monitor's information digest is to the "Parliamentary Select Committee on Human Rights", and is therefore very relevant to this debate. Moreover, the digest items are almost always taken from press releases from the responsible and relevant Department or party.

Mr. Howarth: That is extremely helpful. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said in the debate, and report to the House on what action will be taken to put right what is generally regarded as at least an affront to the House. I realise, however, that you want us to debate that matter at the appropriate time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Lilley: Although we do not want to discuss now the personalities of those who will serve on the Committee, has my hon. Friend found any reference at all in the proposed Standing Order to the existence of a Committee Chairman? Why are the Government presupposing that there will be a Chairman and that they will have to nominate someone?

Mr. Howarth: I assume that, at some point, there will have to be a Committee Chairman; generally it happens that way. However, my right hon. Friend is entirely right that the only mention of a Chairman is in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and

Chislehurst. I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the Chairman should be an Opposition Member.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: Yes, but for the last time; I want to speak to the substance of the motion.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intervention is extremely relevant. As I said, in its comparable motion, the House of Lords referred to the chairmanship. Therefore, the fact that we have no mention of it in our own motion is rather extraordinary.

Mr. Howarth: That is an extremely helpful intervention.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows, I am one of those who were intractably opposed to the Human Rights Act 1998. Unlike him, I am not a lawyer. I have generally found that lawyers are more favourably disposed than many lay people to the legislation.
I seriously wonder what the proposed Committee will do. I think that there is some deception and self-delusion in the matter. The Minister said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield essentially repeated, that there is no power in the 1998 Act to strike down primary legislation. I understand that. I simply ask the Minister to tell us on how many occasions a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights finding the United Kingdom Government in breach has been cast aside and the Court told to take a running jump? If the Minister can tell us on how many occasions that has happened, I am sure that the House would be interested to know.

Mr. Redwood: None.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister's sedentary silence is confirmation that on no occasion has a British Government—the current Government or the previous, Conservative one—done anything other than roll over, accept a decision of the European Court of Human Rights and change the law. The essential point is that, in the early 1950s, when we signed up to the European convention on human rights, we did so only once the then Government were absolutely satisfied that our laws were compliant with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a little rope in the hope that, as he promised, he was going to talk about the substance of the motion. However, he seems to be wandering away from the substance. I must urge him to come back.

Mr. Howarth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you agree that I am entitled to respond to the Parliamentary Secretary's claim that there is no power to strike down primary legislation. The thrust of human rights legislation is that Parliament will not gainsay a decision by the courts. That means that there will be remedial orders, for which the Human Rights Act 1998 provides.
I am not clear about the purpose of the Committee. Will it act as a sift, after receiving a court decision, which contends that an Act of Parliament conflicts with human rights legislation? Will it act as the primary sifter and decide whether to table a remedial order, or will remedial orders be made in every case? In the case of the latter, the House will be obliged to roll over and amend primary legislation that we have passed by democratic vote in the Chamber, in accordance with our constituents' wishes.
The Committee will not be entitled to consider individual cases; they will rightly be ruled out. However, I want to know the precise way in which the Committee will operate. I am always suspicious of a Committee that may be tempted to usurp the role of the House. It seems to me that it will be a major problem if the courts decide that an Act of Parliament—primary legislation—conflicts with human rights legislation. That issue should not be determined by a small caucus; it should be discussed on the Floor of the House from the outset.

Mr. Tipping: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee will consider the matter, that its views will be sought and its points noted. The Government will not necessarily accept the Committee's views. Any legislation will be discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Howarth: I would not have expected the Parliamentary Secretary to answer differently. Of course, any amendment to primary legislation must be done in the Chamber. However, what is the point of establishing the Committee if the issue has to return to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Hayes: There appears to be confusion at the heart of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary—with, I believe, complete integrity—suggests that sovereignty rests with the House. We are told that the Committee will not exist simply to support the lawyers' views. Yet we are also told that the Committee is vital; the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) claim that it is enormously important. However, if sovereignty rests ultimately with the House, which may well disagree with the Committee, why is the Committee so important?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I do not need to repeat it; it speaks for itself. What is the purpose of the Committee if the decisions will ultimately be made on the Floor of the House? That is the essential point that I wanted to make.
I worry that we are being unduly influenced by human rights legislation. That is a grave matter, and we are in danger of having sold the pass. By setting up the Committee and advertising it to the rest of the world as an important Committee of the House, we invest unduly in the possibility of a challenge to Parliament's authority. We should not do that. We should not accept that a Committee of wonderful parliamentarians is to deal with a stream of hostile decisions from the Strand, telling us that our legislation is somehow incompatible with another view of human rights. Creating the Committee gives the impression that we are gearing up to receive such a stream of challenges.

Mr. Grieve: Presumably, if the Committee were to report that it considered the situation to be out of control

and that judicial interference was getting far too great, my hon. Friend would think that it was fulfilling a proper function.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has touching faith in the way in which the Committee will operate. If it were to do that, obviously I would welcome it. However, that is not the way in which the tide is flowing.
The quorum of the Committee is to be three. The Committee will have a dozen members and will deal with extremely important issues which are key to why we as parliamentarians are here. Both Front Benches agree that the Committee should be invested with a degree of authority about which some of us are not quite so certain. With the proposed quorum, the Government—with their overwhelming majority on the Committee—will have to put up only three members to make it work.

Jean Corston: As I understand it—from seeing the membership from the Lords—the Committee will be split six-six.

Mr. Howarth: I understand that there will be six peers and six Members of this House.

Mr. Tyler: If the membership of the Committee is approved by the House later, there will be six Opposition members and six Government members; hence the significance of the casting vote of the Chair.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that clarification, but, with a quorum of three, three Government members would be able to force through a decision of the Committee.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield says and I hope that he is right. However, I fear that the tide is flowing in a different direction from that which he and I would like.

Mr. John Redwood: I have been swayed by some of the arguments made so far, and I hope that the Minister will take the proposal back to redraft it so that it has more chance of working sensibly.
We are invited to make a Standing Order to have a Select Committee consisting of six members from this House and six from another place. We have just heard about some of the impracticalities and difficulties that this produces.
Would it not be better if there were seven members from this House—first, so that if they all turned up, this House could outnumber representatives from their lordships House, which would reflect the prime position of this House; and, secondly, to ensure that if the membership of the Committee were in disagreement, there would be a clear way of making a decision? If everyone turned up, there would be an odd number of people present, so there would be a chance of reaching a conclusion.
The debate has revealed a huge gap in the drafting, in that, unlike some of the other measures coming before the House to set up similar Committees, the proposed Standing Order makes no express provision for a Chairman. There is certainly no express provision for a


Chairman's casting vote. The guess made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is both right and relevant to the provisions before us. It does indeed look as though the Government are minded to make sure that the Chairman is one of their own Members, who has recently stepped down from duties connected with the Front Bench—and to give that Chairman a casting vote. They could then control the Committee, should it become too independent-minded.
It would be much fairer if that were made clear in the wording of the Standing Order. It should be properly drafted, so that if that were the Government's intention, and they had a majority for it—two very possible situations—it would be clear. There would then be no complexities to sort out in the Committee's early meetings if people did not like that implied script, which had not been clearly stated.
My next worry about the drafting arises in paragraph (2)(a), which says that the Committee's remit is

matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom.
That invites comparison with the Tax Simplification Select Committee, to which the House has just agreed. That Committee will have seven members from the House of Commons, and the Minister who spoke for the Government in that debate told us that it involved very narrow technical work. In this debate, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office tells us that the work of the Human Rights Committee will be very wide and very important—yet it warrants one fewer member from the House of Commons than the Tax Simplification Committee. That is another argument in favour of reconsidering the numbers.
Perhaps the Minister should also re-examine the drafting. It is so wide that, with the six-six split, the Committee could find it difficult to agree its work load, which might range more widely than the Government would like—and, indeed, more widely than might be appropriate for a Select Committee. It might start to examine issues that would be far better examined by the House as a whole on appropriate debating occasions.
I wonder whether the Minister would like to narrow the remit to areas in which there is an actual or potential conflict between what this House wishes to do, and what judges in a faraway court think we ought to do. That is, I think, meant to be the nub of the proposal, but it is not reflected in the drafting of paragraph (2)(a).
In contrast, I fear that the second part of paragraph (2)(a) may prove too narrow, because it expressly excludes consideration of individual cases. I understand why some draftsman or lawyer might have put that exclusion in—such people would not want a Select Committee of this House to get involved with the detail of the judicial process when an individual case was going through the courts. Obviously, that would not be appropriate, sensible, or even possible under our rules.
However, the Committee, and the House as a whole, may well have to examine the consequences of test cases, other individual cases, or cases that have brought a generic point before the court, when they have come to a conclusion in the court. I wonder whether paragraph (2)(a) is so odd that while the first part of it is far too wide, so that the Committee will not be focused on what I think is the Government's intention, the exclusion in the second

part of it could get in the way of what the Government do want the Committee to do—to react to individual cases after they have been determined or decided, if it emerges that the Committee and the courts think that our law has, deliberately or inadvertently, been incompatible with the European convention on human rights as interpreted in the courts.
Paragraph (2)(b) says that the Committee should consider
proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998.
I understand why that should be so, yet sub-paragraph (c) says that the Committee must also consider
whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to
draft remedial orders and remedial orders
on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151.
This is where we have seen potential problems about how much the Committee has the power and how much it should be a matter for the House as a whole. I am not sure whether the combined drafting of paragraphs (b) and (c) satisfies my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that more of this should come back to the House as a whole. That is not necessarily clear or implied from the slightly loose drafting of paragraphs (a) and (b).
The Committee is told that it shall report to the House

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved.

That is more promising from the point of view of those of us who would like a guarantee about the supremacy of the House. I wonder how the Minister might distinguish that from the cases under paragraph (2), in which there seems some potential for disagreement. Perhaps he will clarify those issues, should he be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Paragraph (5) makes it clear that the Committee's quorum should be only three. We were very moved and pleased that the Paymaster General, talking about a similar proposal for tax simplification, graciously conceded or clarified that that Committee's quorum would be four. It seems a pity that the number required for this Committee's quorum is fewer when, as Ministers seem to have said from the Dispatch Box, it will be dealing with bigger and more important issues.

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can clarify the matter for the right hon. Gentleman. The quorum for the Committee will be three from each House, resulting in a quorum of six in total. That is normal practice.

Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for that; it was not clear to me from the drafting. That explanation is now in Hansard, which is a great reassurance. We shall have a quorum of six for a Committee of 12, while the House as a whole—although not all of us—was satisfied with a quorum of four for a Committee of 13. There are some dissimilarities in treatment. At least this one is compatible with the Minister saying that this Committee will deal with weightier and more important matters. We are very


relieved to hear that, and I am sure that it will be an important consideration when we discuss who might be the right person, or group of Members, to sit on the Committee.
The next matter that worries me in the drafting is in paragraph (7)(a). It has the conventional requirement that the Committee shall have the power
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
I am very happy with those provisions; they are essential to the conduct of the Select Committee's work, as they are to many others. However, I was surprised to learn that the Committee can
adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year.
That might become an invitation to the Committee to ensure that it goes to such places four times a year and might be an inducement for Members to sit on the Committee. I am not sure whether the Committee's deliberations will require expensive travel outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that it could do its work, as defined in the earlier paragraphs, by being present in or around this great building at Westminster and calling for persons, papers and records here. After all, these are matters related to the legislation of the United Kingdom; they will not be elucidated by taking a Cook's tour of various places around Europe, and I am not sure why we need that additional expense.
This is another example of a Select Committee being introduced on fairly slender evidence of the need, to fit in, in a rather strange way, with our normal procedures, with no budget or statement from the Government about the cost. We were not told how much the tax simplification Joint Committee could spend on tax advice and special advisers. Here again, we are not told how much can be spent on travel.
Paragraph (7)(b) shows that the Committee can
appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
I understand the need for that, but the Minister could have told us how much that might entail. How many advisers are we talking about? To which areas of specialism will the Committee need access, given that it has access to all the facilities of the House—including the Library? Furthermore, the Government are on tap for cross examination and the Committee can send for Ministers with their papers and records. One needs some control; as the Committee, sensibly, has wide-ranging powers to ask people to give their time and opinions free, do we really need as many specialist advisers as this open-ended measure could propose?
Will the Minister reconsider the measure? Will he work again on the number of members, the provision of the chairmanship, the casting vote and the balance between procedures under paragraphs (2) and (3)? That will reassure those of us who want the House clearly to be sovereign. We feel that it will not be sovereign under the proposal, which is a way of accommodating the wishes of the court without us really being able to say that we disagree. Will the Minister look again at the gyrations around Europe and in Britain? The overall budget for specialist advisers should certainly be considered. The measure would then be in a better shape for us to vote on.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Early exchanges in the debate between the Minister and hon. Members raised a conundrum that we need to resolve. Except in one instance when the Committee makes general comments on the state of human rights, it will come into play only if an Act is found to be non-compliant by the courts. The Labour Government intend to introduce only Bills whose compliance with human rights legislation they have certified, so why do we need the Committee?
There are two possible answers; they will naturally affect our judgment as to whether the resolution is correctly framed. The first is that the courts may find old legislation non-compliant. Even though the House and the country have been perfectly satisfied with it and do not feel that it infringes human rights in any way, some judge may decide that it is non-compliant.
Secondly, the Government may misjudge whether their legislation is compliant. The reason for that is because the application of the human rights convention is essentially subjective. Human rights are what the relevant judges decide the convention means. That is a subjective judgment.
There are no absolute and incontrovertible human rights. A balance must always be made between one right and another. We can say that there is a right to free speech, but that may conflict with a right to privacy; we have to achieve a balance between the two. In the past, we have recognised that that balancing process is, in essence, political; it has to take into account practical realities— the temper and mood of the country, past experience and so on. Hence the decision was taken by the people's parliamentary representatives in this place and not by the courts or by unelected people who could not be turfed out if they got the judgment wrong.
There are no infallible rules by which a given convention—rather abstractly and vaguely phrased—can be applied in practice, so we are reliant on the subjective working of judges' minds. I shall return to that point in due course.

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but he should note that paragraph (2)(a) does not limit the Committee to discussing issues on which we may be deemed to be in disagreement with the convention. The proposal is so wide ranging. Does he not see that the Committee could also set out its own agenda, which might be different from that of the convention and of the Government? Would there not then be an even bigger muddle?

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend is correct. That was the exception to which I referred when I pointed out that the Committee would normally come into play only when there had been a finding of non-compliance. I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down the avenue of how the Committee might interpret the power that, for some reason, it will be given under this proposal.
As I understand it, normally, in considering whether any Act of Parliament infringes human rights, judges will interpret the Act not as it has been written but as they think it ought to have been written to make it compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. If they


cannot torture the Act's wording into compliance with the convention or with what they think it means, they will rule that it is non-compliant.
The Government will then draft an order to make that legislation compliant. The Committee will examine that order, and say whether it agrees with it or it should be amended. It will not be able to amend it; it will be able only to suggest amendments. The Government may then take those suggestions on board, or not, as the case may be. They will then put to the House their final draft of the order necessary to make the legislation compliant. The House will be able to reject or accept that order, but not to amend it.

Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that the Committee is either superfluous or highly intrusive. To paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), it is either too broad or too narrow. If so, and if the Committee is to be intrusive, surely it will be doing the bidding of the courts rather than the bidding of the House. That is certainly the implication of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is saying.

Mr. Lilley: That may well be an implication of my remarks which my hon. Friend has drawn from them, but it was not the direction in which my argument was heading.
My point is that the six Members of Parliament on the Committee will be the only Members of the House who will have any opportunity, and then only indirectly and with the Government's say-so, to amend the order that the Government put before them. The legislation allows the Government to amend primary legislation in response to a ruling from the courts by an order, and if I am correct— doubtless the Minister will intervene if I am not—the House will not have the chance to amend that change to our primary legislation. It is only as a half-hearted response to the fact that we are faced with a fait accompli—the courts driving the Government to introduce an order that is not amendable—that the Committee is being set up to provide the spurious pretence that amendment is possible.

Mr. Hayes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that his proposition and mine are not mutually exclusive. It may well be that the Committee will do the work of the House, in the sense that it replaces the House, but it is also doing the bidding of the courts. The worrying thing about the Committee is that if it is not superfluous, as we all hope it might be, it will be highly damaging.

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Committee will almost be institutionally biased, if I may coin a phrase, in seeing its role as simply deciding whether the Government have correctly interpreted the will of the courts and succeeded in rendering legislation compliant, in the courts' view, with the human rights convention. There is no positive compulsion in the Committee's terms of reference, as laid down by the motion, but that is how things will work out in practice and it is the only way in which an all-party Committee could operate, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
We are faced with a situation in which the Government are pretending to provide the House with at least some means of influencing the orders that they will place before it, and that means that only the Committee, and the six members of it who are drawn from this House, will have any chance of influencing the detail of the order put before the House.
That is monstrous in two respects. First, six Members are far too few. The Committee should really be of the whole House. If the motion is not passed tonight, we would have the chance to table amendments to that effect. Secondly, the Committee should have the power not just to suggest amendments to the Government, but to vote and insist on amendments to the Government's proposed Standing Order. I would like us to move in that direction.
We all know that, in practice, once this House is faced with a finding by the courts of non-compliance in respect of a piece of legislation that it has passed, although notionally retaining sovereignty, as the Minister tried to convince us it would, it will not reject or repudiate the finding, say that it intends to allow the legislation to stand or alter it in ways that do not at least try to remove the courts' objections.
The House will not do so because if it did it would be held up for vilification by the media as opposed to human rights. No one would ask to whose definition of human rights the House is opposed, or whether it has a different, possibly higher, better, freer view of human rights in such circumstances. It will be labelled by the courts as against human rights. So, de facto, sovereignty has been surrendered and rendered inoperable by the procedures of the underlying legislation. The motion does nothing to restore sovereignty to the House, as the Minister pretended. We should be very clear about that.

Mr. Hayes: We have come to the nub of the issue. My right hon. Friend seems to be saying that the Committee is a palliative, a pretence. In practice, the Government and this House could in no way overrule the decision of the courts, for the reasons that he has given. We are setting up the Committee to make the matter look better, acceptable—to make hon. Members think that they have had some involvement, when in fact they have had almost none.

Mr. Lilley: Yes, having been castrated, the House has been given the chance to pretend that it still has some role to play in the harem. It has not—at least not one that will be much fun. All this matters a lot because we are empowering courts to review and consider legislation and, effectively, to require the House to alter it if the courts think that it does not meet their beliefs of what human rights should be.
I was much struck by the comments of Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty", in which he says that, normally, the legal profession is the most conservative of professions, which will try to interpret things in line with the status quo—except when it is driven by a new legal philosophy. Then, he says, lawyers become members of the most radical of professions, altering law in every jot and tittle to bring it into line with their new philosophy.
Unfortunately, our legal profession is increasingly dominated by the philosophy of political correctness and of positive rights rather than the traditional view of procedural rights. So, we are likely to find ourselves with


a legal profession introducing increasing numbers of rulings to the effect that the laws passed by this House do not meet their idea of the law of the country. They will be proposing that there are legal rights to a job, for example. If measures under the Government's new deal do not automatically give people a job of the type to which the courts think that people have a right, the Government will be required to change that legislation.
We could find all sorts of positive rights emerging, for example, in the sphere of employment employers might be deemed to have a duty to employ people—rather than simply not to discriminate against them—because they belong to some class that is under-represented among the firm's staff. Can we imagine the Committee amending an order that a Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion, which deals with the workings and the nature of the Committee itself.

Mr. Lilley: Sensing that you were about to bring me back to that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had reached it just as you rose to your feet. The precise matter to which we must give attention is whether or not the Committee would behave in a way that would improve matters. In the powers and duties given to the Committee, I perceive no evidence that would convince me that the Committee would ever help us to stand up against a legal profession that is empowered by the Human Rights Act and motivated by political correctness to overhaul the law.

Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has referred, rightly and with due deference, to the Hayekian view. As I am sure you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, Friedrich von Hayek was a great man. However, paragraph (2)(a) of the motion mentions consideration of
matters relating to human rights
on which there are, inevitably, many different views. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the view articulated in "A Nation or No Nation: Six Years in British Politics", published by Batsford, in which the Powellite view is ably expressed?

Mr. Lilley: That was one of the formative texts in the development of my political thinking. It underlies many of my comments tonight and it is no coincidence that my hon. Friend is drawn to recall that seminal work. However, I would not elaborate further on that book by a great former Member of Parliament.
I emphasise that, if we approve the motion, we shall be taking part in a triple pretence: that the House retains any operable sovereignty in such matters; that it will have any say in how the Government decide to comply with the courts; and that the Committee has any power to influence the way in which the Government operate. We should have no truck with pretence and play-acting. Either we radically alter the motion, or we reject it.

Mr. Tipping: I welcome the broad support given by the official Opposition and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and should like to make a couple of preliminary points. First, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably made the point that the

European convention on human rights has been in force for 50 years and British citizens have had recourse to it throughout that period. All hon. Members recognise that, in the past, legislation has had to be amended in the light of decisions by the European Court.
Secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force. Parliament passed that Act. We had a long debate on it and one of the Government's commitments was to set up the Joint Committee. This evening, there has been a debate about how much the Committee will have to do. One issue is whether the Committee will be overworked, and I remind colleagues of the Scottish experience. The Scottish Parliament signed up to the Human Rights Act a year before us, and so far its experience suggests that the number of challenges has been fairly limited. However, I think that there will be challenges.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) correctly identified the fact that past legislation could be reviewed and, like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, acknowledged that, although a certificate of compatibility is given to Bills, the Government do not always get it right. I have no doubt that there will be challenges to future legislation. As I said, the Human Rights Act is now in force, and the debate will concern how many challenges are made. I remind the House again that British citizens already have access to the European convention on human rights, and have had it for 50 years.
The House has not been asked to consider anything new, save the mechanism that it is being asked to agree on the Joint Committee. A couple of points are at issue. First, on the quorum, may I reinforce the point that I made in an intervention? The quorum is three Members from each House, making a total of six. There has been a good deal of debate about the chairmanship of the Committee. I say directly to the hon. Member for North Cornwall that I shall look to see what press releases there have been. To my knowledge, so far there have been none. I would be surprised if there had been any, but I will look carefully at the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me again reinforce the point that it will be a matter for the Committee to decide who will, or will not, be the Chairman. I must not disguise the fact that I know that Labour Members who will serve on the Committee have an idea who they will, or will not, nominate. However, at the end of the day, that will be a matter for the Committee.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister tell us why the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretary? Was there any kind of deal before that event took place? It looks as if there must have been.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who was described in glowing terms by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, resigned as PPS to be a member of the Committee, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). That is an indication of the importance that they attach to the Committee.
I reinforce the point that deciding the chairmanship will be a matter for the Committee. The hon. Member for North Cornwall argued that it was necessary to have a Chairman from the Opposition because of the casting vote. As I understand it—I am pretty confident about this


but I will check, write to the hon. Gentleman and put a copy in the Library—as this is a Joint Committee, there will be no casting vote: every Committee member has an equal vote. That is a long tradition of the House, and I would be surprised if I am wrong.
The other debate in the Chamber tonight has been about whether the powers of the Committee are too wide. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) explored that point and felt that the powers of the Committee were far too wide. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was keen to suggest that the powers were too restrictive and that there was no need for the Committee at all. I have been rather shocked during our debate because, by tradition and in what they normally say, Opposition Members envisage greater parliamentary scrutiny. Here we are, introducing a proposal that provides parliamentary scrutiny: I support it, and I hope that the House will.
Question put:—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 17 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — Human Rights

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That Mr. Desmond Browne, Sir Patrick Cormack, Jean Corston, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I am delighted to move the motion and know from personal experience that the Labour Members who wish to serve on the Committee and are being nominated tonight are keen to be members and will act vigorously and diligently. On reading the list of names that the House is being asked to recommend, my impression was that all those Members would do a good job on behalf of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: The really bad news about the names being proposed for membership of the Committee is that they seem preponderantly to be those of lawyers. That seems to confirm the view expressed earlier that this nonsense will be a lawyers' beanfeast, both outside the House and now, regrettably, inside. I suppose that we can be somewhat consoled by the fact that my very hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) will be on the Committee. I would have thought that he would make an excellent candidate for the chairmanship. Perhaps the Committee—in its alleged impartiality, and assuming that we believe a word of what the Minister told us about the matter not having been carved up already—will realise that my hon. Friend would make a most wonderful Chairman. It may want to consider that.

Mr. John Bercow: Frankly, it is not good enough, even at this relatively late hour, for my right hon. Friend to make such an assertion without substantiation. I assume that he is making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would make such a good Chairman because he is, almost beyond question, the greatest living parliamentarian

Mr. Forth: That, of course, is a hotly contested title, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the right hon. Gentleman also noticed that my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who represents all points north, is to be a member of the Committee? Should the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), in his usual modest way, not wish to take up that important appointment, another very respected parliamentarian might do so.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to deal with that point and shall do so now.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—or the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Island, as I like to call him—is indeed a senior and experienced Member of


the House. He was first elected in 1966, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire in 1970. Proposed for membership art two enormously experienced, very senior, very influential and extremely respected Members of the House. Although I suggested my hon. Friend first, I am sure that he, as well as we, would want to consider seriously the claim that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has put for his colleague, the right hon. Member for places in the far north.
My only reservation is that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross obtained an LLB from Cambridge, which I regard as a distinct disadvantage. He then practised as a barrister, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who graduated from Aberystwyth. I leave it to the House to judge whether that is an advantage, but he also, apparently, is a barrister. I am happy that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) is here. His presence indicates that at least those proposed for membership of the Human Rights Committee, unlike those proposed for membership of the Committee that we discussed earlier, show genuine interest and commitment. We should all be grateful for and appreciative of that.
I am delighted to say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is almost certainly the most highly qualified proposed member of the Committee because he has an LLB from the university of Glasgow. I can think of no higher qualification than one from Glasgow, and he has practised as a solicitor.

Mr. John Redwood: Like my right hon. Friend, I was encouraged by the presence in the Chamber of the Members who are seeking to sit on the Committee. However, is it not rather disturbing that they seem not to have speaking parts? They seem to have only a walk-on part in this Government-arranged drama. Would we not believe rather more if they told us of their views?

Mr. Forth: That is a matter for them to decide. I am still suspicious about why they all suddenly mysteriously resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. That makes me wonder whether they will still effectively be members of the payroll and under some instruction from somewhere, but perhaps they will not.
Having taken account of the plethora of legal talent, I come to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who either is or is not, or is allegedly, to be the Chairman of the Committee. If the records are correct, she has an LLB from the London school of economics.

Mr. Bercow: When?

Mr. Forth: I am now becoming really suspicious. It is one thing to come from Cambridge, Aberystwyth or Glasgow—

Mr. Bercow: When?

Mr. Forth: I will not discuss when. That would be ungallant. Some of us still cling to rather old ideas of gallantry.
All these Members being lawyers, I am beginning to see why my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who speaks from the Opposition Front

Bench, is so enthusiastic about these matters. He is part of the mafia. In his readiness to endorse the motion, he was obviously rather keen on the idea that all the other legal eagles would get jobs on the Committee. It is beginning to look rather cosy. The Member I exempt from that is the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), to whom we must look for a lay view of the matters that are before us. He may be the only member of the Committee whom we can trust to give a properly balanced view of its work, instead of all the ghastly lawyers.
I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North—

Mr. Tyler: North Cornwall.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must tell me the difference some time.
It is a matter of some importance whether the Government believe that the chairmanship of the Committee has been carved up in advance. It looks like that. There is circumstantial evidence, if I may use that rather legalistic term, that the hon. Member for Bristol, East has already been tapped on the shoulder by the Government and assured that the chairmanship is hers.
The Minister has said that he will look into the matter and reveal all. He has said also that he will put things into the Library and—

Mr. Tipping: I said that I thought no press release had been put out but that I would look, then write to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and put a copy in the House Library.

Mr. Forth: That is a pretty weedy undertaking. I suspect that simply to look into whether there has been a press release is not what most Members want. We want an assurance, a guarantee or an undertaking that the Government have not said to the hon. Member for Bristol, East, "You will be the Chairman of the Committee as and when the House sets it up." Knowing the Minister as we do, he should be prepared to tell the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are discussing the members of the Committee, not who will be the Chair of it.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One of the lacunae in the motion is that no mention is made of the chairmanship. It is somewhat doubtful whether the Committee will have a Chairman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the motion dealing with the setting up of the Committee has already been dealt with. As I have said, we are now discussing the membership of the Committee.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he observed that although there is in the motion no reference to the chairmanship, there is such


a reference in the Lords motion? That might mean— perhaps the Minister will intervene to confirm—that the Chair must come from the Lords.

Mr. Forth: That may be, but I am precluded from speculating further on the matter by the ruling from the Chair, which I will of course observe meticulously, as I hope I always do.
We are left with the bare bones of what we know about the hon. Members being proposed for the Committee. It is for the House to decide. If we want the Committee to be packed with lawyers, that is one thing. If we expected a broader representation of the Members of the House, we will be disappointed. We have been told that the Committee will have a balance of Government and non-Government members, and for that small crumb I suppose we should be grateful.
We will all be watching very carefully to see whether the House agrees to the establishment of the Committee. It is one of those absurd deferred votes, so we cannot know until Wednesday whether the Committee has been set up. I therefore conclude that we cannot logically agree to the motion tonight, as the House has not yet indicated whether it accepts the substantive motion to set up the Committee.
I shall be guided by you on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should be surprised if you told the House that we could deal with the matter now, when we have not yet dealt with the substantive matter, as a result of the ludicrous and absurd deferred Division procedure, to which we are now—I hope only temporarily—subject.
I need not express my view one way or the other on the matter at this stage, presumably. That will have to wait until Wednesday. I shall ponder the matter between now and Wednesday. I shall almost certainly vote against the substantive motion to set up the Committee, for reasons that my right hon. and hon. Friends explained. I shall want to think about the motion. I am rather grateful that I do not have to cast my vote tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question is as on the Order Paper—

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm whether the matter can be put to the House at this stage, as we have not yet indicated whether the House agrees to the establishment of a Committee for which the motion proposes the members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in the order of the House on deferred Divisions to prevent the motion on human rights being debated in the House this evening. We have already begun the process of coming to a decision on the motion on Human Rights (Joint Committee). When the motion to nominate members to the Human Rights Committee was not moved in the House last week, the House had already decided not to consider the matter of setting up the Committee. That was therefore an entirely different situation.

Mr. Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just given is self-explanatory, but it refers to debating the issue, not deciding it—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter is subject to a deferred Division, as has already been explained to the House.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you are telling us that it is your view that there will be two deferred Division matters before the House on Wednesday, how will the House know whether it has approved the first one in a deferred Division, before they must decide how or whether to vote on the second one? Surely, as we aniticipated long ago, the House is being put in a ludicrous, unacceptable and unworkable position by the fact that there will be two interrelated deferred Divisions on the Order Paper. I do not see how that can make any sense at all.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for hon. Members at the time that they are exercising their vote. Right hon. and hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the operation of the order on deferred Divisions should make their views knows to the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Redwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it would be helpful to the House if it were decided that the deferred Division on the matter of substance should take place this Wednesday, and that the present motion should be reintroduced, if the Committee is to be set up. I do not see how we can vote on who should be on a Committee when it may not be set up. Can you please clarify that?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already given a ruling on the matter. That is not for me to decide.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Government enjoyed an extremely narrow majority, a deferred vote on the Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already explained that, if right hon. and hon. Members are dissatisfied with the operation of the order on deferred Divisions, they should make their views known to the Modernisation Committee.
Question put:—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 17 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April. 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Mine Shafts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. John Healey: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the Coal Authority's records of former mine shafts. I want to draw the House's attention to the problems of a couple in my constituency, Michael and Pauline Ryan, and to press the general case for reform of the way in which the Coal Authority handles the situation when serious doubt is cast on the accuracy of the mining records that it maintains.
Michael and Pauline Ryan bought their semi-detached house in Firth road in West Melton in 1980. That was the biggest investment of their lives, as it is for many couples. It cost them £11,000, and since then they have put a great deal of time and money into improving the house and its gardens. In February 1999, they sold the house and agreed the purchase of another, but 10 days before completion date the buyer pulled out. As Mr. Ryan said, the buyer pulled out
leaving us puzzled and well out of pocket.
The reason soon became clear. In the mining report supplied to the buyer's solicitor as part of the conveyancing process, the Coal Authority reported a disused mine shaft underneath the neighbour's adjoining property. The authority's report and its stance since have left Mr. and Mrs. Ryan almost £2,000 further out of pocket.
It is no understatement to say that the Ryans were devastated; they did not know where to turn. They were told that the value of their property had been halved. In an area where housing is in plentiful supply and the housing market is slack, buyers are reluctant to run any risk on such a property and lenders are reluctant to offer mortgages if mine shafts may affect the stability of the house in question. When Mr. Ryan first contacted me last February, he told me:
A property we have invested 20 years in now seems a liability rather than an asset, through no fault of our own.
The problem arises because the reporting requirements changed between 1980, when the Ryans bought their house, and 1999 when they tried to sell it. Until 1989, it was left to solicitors to decide whether to make inquiries about former mine shafts and what to ask. British Coal's practice in reporting such information varied from area to area. That was why, in 1989, the Law Society introduced a standard form with a standard question about any shafts, adits or entries to coal mine workings in the vicinity of the property. However, interpretations of "in the vicinity" of the property still varied, so in 1991 the Law Society, with British Coal, amended the standard form to ask about any shafts within 20 m of the boundary of the property. Mr. Ryan said at the time:
We now feel backed into a corner with our only course left a potentially very expensive civil lawsuit against the Coal Authority.
Mr. and Mrs. Ryan had paid for legal opinions, but they had also gathered all the relevant maps and records that existed. It became clear to Mr. Ryan—indeed, it has become clear to me as I have studied the evidence over the last few months—that there are serious grounds for doubting the accuracy of the one record, an 1875 geological survey sheet showing a mine shaft under Mr. Ryan's neighbour's property.
In the 1800s, there was a mine nearby with two shafts, both capped and still visible; but they were between 80 and 100 m from Mr. Ryan's property. The pit was called the Cottage of Content, or the West Melton mine. It was, with its shafts, plotted correctly on the 1851 Ordnance Survey map; the shafts were plotted correctly on the 1892 Ordnance Survey map, and on those produced in 1903 and 1905. On all those maps, there was no sign or suggestion of any other shaft in the vicinity of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's house.
The 1875 record appears to come from two field slips produced by A.H. Green in 1872, when he walked through the best part of south Yorkshire plotting geological features on top of existing Ordnance Survey maps. I have studied the two field slips produced from the area, one clearly prepared in the field and one a fair copy transposed subsequently. The transposition involves a variation in the site of the mine shaft, and there is a clear suggestion that it was incorrectly plotted. The fair copy found its way on to the 1875 British geological survey map, reproduced in 1931. That is the record cited by the Coal Authority in the 1999 mining report on Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's property.
The clinching evidence for me is a mine abandonment plan, and the final closure of the Cottage of Content colliery in 1887. After 1870, all mines that were closed had to produce records of shafts and workings, which were then filed with what is now the Coal Authority. An inspector of mines signed off the abandonment plan for the Cottage of Content colliery on 1 November 1887. It shows two shafts in precisely the position indicated by the Ordnance Survey maps, and underground workings of the Melton field roughly on a north-south axis stretching away from where the third shaft is supposed to be—away from the Ryans' property.
Despite that evidence, the Coal Authority's views remained fixed. In a letter sent to Mr. Ryan last February, N.G. Wilcoxson, operations manager of the Coal Authority, wrote:
The fact of the matter is that The Authority holds records which clearly indicate a shaft in the position of
Mr. Ryan's neighbour's property.
As such we are duty bound to reveal this fact when requested to do so through the procedures of a Law Society coal mining search application.
In the same letter, however, Mr. Wilcoxson concedes that
the shaft position must be taken as approximate, but the information in our possession does not constitute conclusive proof that this shaft is the same
as either of the other two shown on the Ordnance Survey maps,
and therefore sufficient evidence does not exist to enable me to delete
the shaft
from our records.
In conversations with the Coal Authority, Mr. Ryan was left in no doubt that even if further evidence was produced, there was no certainty that the Coal Authority would indeed remove the shaft from its mining reports.
I have checked with mining engineers, including a large company that is contracted to the Coal Authority. Geophysical techniques can be used to verify the presence

or absence of former mine shafts. Drilling, radar-type techniques and microgravity surveys are among the commonplace techniques these days. The cost of such a report to Mr. Ryan would be £2,000 to £2,500, but the experience of companies that have carried out such surveys, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), who I know would have wished to be here tonight, has been that the Coal Authority will still maintain the shaft on the register, albeit perhaps with some qualification where it has not been found. That problem has been confirmed in my discussions with solicitors, mining advisers and academics as I have researched the problem.
I have four criticisms of the Coal Authority. First, the onus is entirely on the individual to check the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records and reports, with all the time, effort and cost that that entails. Secondly, the Coal Authority appears to take no responsibility for the accuracy of the records that it holds. Thirdly, the Coal Authority has no procedure established for resolving a situation where there is serious dispute or doubt about the accuracy of its records. Finally, it gives no undertaking that if its records are wrong, they will be amended.
Mr. Ryan's plight is not commonplace, but it is not a one-off. The South Yorkshire mining advisory service, which is an admirable body providing advice and expertise to local authorities in South Yorkshire, but not to individuals, maintains that the problem is becoming more common because solicitors are taking more trouble in the searches that they undertake as part of their conveyancing responsibilities.
The Coal Authority does not keep statistics of cases where the accuracy of its maps or records is in dispute, but its latest annual report gives some indication. According to the 1999–2000 report, the authority supplied 370,000 mining reports to solicitors, local authorities and for internal use. Despite those 370,000 mining reports, there were only 1,815 inquiries about its mining records. Of those, 1,292 concerned abandonment plans, 189 geological issues and 99 were coal commission inquiries, leaving 235 in the "other" category. Mr. Ryan's case would have fallen under that category. In the past year, the Coal Authority could have dealt with a maximum of just over 200 cases of that type. Almost certainly, it will deal with many fewer than that.
It is a problem that could occur for any family in any former mining area. Solving it would make small-scale demands of the Coal Authority, but it would make a huge impact on the lives, prospects and peace of mind of families hit by blight to their property.
In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, there is good news to report. As a result of the interest and inquiries from the Minister's office in the run-up to the debate, the Coal Authority seems to have had another look at the evidence. I quote from a letter dated today to Mr. Ryan from the same N.G. Wilcoxson of the Coal Authority:
On 10th January 2001 we received a faxed copy of a letter dated 9th January addressed to you from BGS—
the British Geological Survey.
This letter contained new information that was sufficient to enable us to delete
the shaft
from Coal Authority records.
I can confirm that future coal mining reports prepared by the authority, for your property, would not disclose this shaft.


Although I am delighted for Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, I am disturbed that other people in coalfield areas may suffer the same plight. I ask the Minister to consider that, when there are good grounds for doubting the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records, the authority should be required to have in place a system of checking the accuracy of its own records and to amend them when they are wrong. There should also be a publicised verification procedure, so that individuals such as Mr. Ryan know what they have to produce for the Coal Authority to take their case seriously.
I ask the Minister to consider two points other than the obvious justice of requiring a public body to accept, assess and act on well-founded evidence that it may be in error. First, one of the Coal Authority's duties specified in the Coal Industry Act 1994—which established it—and as the authority's current corporate plan states, is
to maintain records and provide information.
Although the authority generally performs that duty very efficiently—for example, 86 per cent. of last year's 370,000 mining reports were returned within two working days, and 96 per cent. were returned within five working days—it should have in place a system for dealing with the exceptions, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its records.
Secondly, the matter is unfinished Government business. In July 1996, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry produced its Seventh Report, on former mine shafts, and its recommendation 4 stated:
for mine shafts revealed on mining searches which are within influencing distance of existing buildings, the Coal Authority accept responsibility for seeking to determine their precise location in cases of doubt.
In October 1996, the then Government produced their response to the report. They stated that they would consider recommendation 4
in light of the outcome of the work of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Blight.
However, four years later, in July 2000, when that esteemed group reported, it did not address the issue of mine shafts, but only addressed the specific issue that arises when large development sites require compulsory purchase of properties. The Minister may correct me, but I believe that, since July, no conclusion to the Government's consideration of the matter has been published.
My call is not for an open season on the Coal Authority. As I said, generally the authority efficiently handles its responsibility for Britain's mining records. Neither do I suggest that the Coal Authority should have a duty to investigate unless a threshold of evidence suggests that there are grounds for serious doubt or dispute about the accuracy of its records. I also do not—as the previous Government disingenuously argued in their response to the Select Committee—propose that
it would become standard practice for solicitors advising prospective purchasers at least to inquire whether the Coal Authority had established the precise location of any disused shafts.
As that response went on to state:
On that basis, the annual cost of precisely locating shafts alone could well build up to some millions of pounds and the eventual cost to many tens of millions of pounds.
It is not a matter for legislation or for the Coal Authority's quinquennial review, but a proper point about current operational policy. If my right hon. Friend the

Minister can persuade the Coal Authority to accept such a responsibility, she will give hope and help to families such as the Ryans and reinforce the Coal Authority's role as the keeper of our nation's mining records.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on securing this debate and raising the issue in the House. I am well aware that he has pursued the matter with vigour, and is able today to celebrate considerable success in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. I am very pleased to hear about that success. One can only imagine the distress that the events caused Mr. and Mrs. Ryan.
In general, such issues are not unfamiliar to the Government; hon. Members have raised them on several occasions. I am well aware of the difficulties and the effects of old coal workings on the value and saleability of property in some parts of the country. They can profoundly affect the plans of people who own nouses that are found to be near mine shafts.
I am delighted for Mr. and Mrs. Ryan that some resolution has occurred; I hope that some important lessons have been learned. I shall ensure that the Coal Authority has an opportunity to read my hon. Friend's remarks with a view to taking his helpful suggestions into account. I stress that the authority is an independent statutory corporation, and I therefore have no statutory powers to intervene in its day-to-day operations. However, I know from my discussions with it that it is anxious to be as responsive as possible to the difficulties, and to improve administration as much as possible.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's difficulties were caused by an error in the supply of information to the authority by a third party. I undertake to write to the chairman of the Coal Authority to ask for his assurance that the recurrence of the sort of errors about which we have heard tonight will be limited. My hon. Friend acknowledges that the case is unusual; it is rarely possible to deal with matters in a way that is acceptable to all concerned. However, it is important to recognise that everything should be done to assess the accuracy of the information that the Coal Authority holds.
A much broader, serious issue underlies the subject: the impact on property values when a mine shaft is recorded close by. That problem must be tackled. It tends to affect specific areas of the country, principally those where mining activity in the 19th century or earlier was followed by intensive urban development. However, it should be taken into account in general policy terms.
Let us consider briefly the way in which the Coal Authority handles records, and its powers. It has a collection of approximately 100,000 plans of former coal mining workings. They record 150,000 mine shafts. When those workings date from the 18th or 19th centuries, their status—whether or how they have been treated since working ceased—is unknown, and even their precise location may be uncertain. The Coal Authority is under a statutory obligation to make available the content of the plans and to establish arrangements to allow access to the information that they contain. The authority is keen to add to its records to ensure that the database is as complete and as accurate as possible. Perhaps modern technology will allow the Coal Authority to add to its records.
The Coal Authority has established a sophisticated mining reports database, which I have seen. It produces almost 400,000 mining reports, to which my hon. Friend referred, primarily for use by solicitors. Those reports answer questions from the Law Society on the presence of former coal workings, including mine shafts. Across the country, an average of approximately 2 to 3 per cent. of the mining reports will reveal a mine shaft.
As I said earlier, many mine shafts date from the 19th century. Until the middle of the 19th century, mine owners were not required to prepare plans of their mine workings. Those early plans were not prepared to any specified standard, and they have often proved unreliable. The Coal Authority exercises great care in transposing them to its database. However, it is only a custodian of old plans; rarely will there be personal knowledge or recollection that the recorded mines actually existed. Indeed, the authority pointed out that my constituency office was sited above a mine shaft. Not even the most elderly of my constituents—who have tremendous memories of these matters—could attest to a mineworking being so close to what is now a town centre. It is difficult to guarantee the accuracy of the information in the old mining plans, but every conceivable means must be sought to improve the accuracy. Many disputes arise for property owners because of accuracy. I thank my hon. Friend for some of his suggestions, which I will draw to the attention of the chairman of the Coal Authority. I will ensure that, in replying to me, the chairman replies also to my hon. Friend.
One other statutory power that should be mentioned is the authority's power to repair any damage caused by subsidence from former coalworkings at no cost to the property owner or the insurer. This power does not extend beyond coalworkings and can be invoked only where there is evidence of physical damage. It does not allow the Coal Authority to provide any compensation for loss of value of property as a result of the presence of a mine

shaft. Nevertheless, this power gives a very strong remedy and should be given careful consideration by those involved with property affected by former coalworkings.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the interest taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and some of the issues affecting her constituency. He will be aware that my Department has taken a consultancy contract with Heriot-Watt university to look at some of the issues surrounding property values and the workings of mine shafts. I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the conclusions of that work, but I hope to do so in the near future. It may be that some measures come out of that to help us to address some of the issues.
I am anxious that these issues should be addressed by the Coal Authority as far as possible within its current legislative framework Some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made are common sense and I hope that that will be taken into account by the authority.
There are complex issues here, and there are no easy solutions. A large number of players are involved, over many of whom the Government have little power. There is also an issue of perception; where a prospective purchaser hears of the presence of a mine shaft, it can cause difficulties with proceeding with a purchase. There is also the question of recording what has happened to a mine shaft—where that information is available—and whether it has been tilled in. With more modern mine shafts, that is a relatively easy matter to deal with. With the older mine shafts, it is much more complex.
There is a need to look at the issues and I assure my hon. Friend that I will keep in mind his useful suggestions, which I will convey to the Coal Authority. I am determined that we keep in the forefront of our minds the interests of the people most affected by the situation; those whose homes become difficult to sell because of a mine shaft underneath or near to them. We will try to find solutions that are fair to them and to other home owners. My hon. Friend has given us some good suggestions tonight; I undertake to look at them in some detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.